Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 87, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private pills should be first considered and they had determined that the Bills contained, in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

Blackpool Improvement.
Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch Electricity.
Bridgwater Corporation.
Brownhills Urban District Council. Dagenham Trading Estate.
Doncaster Extension.
Gas Light and Coke Company.
Hove Pier.
Kingston-upon-Thames Extension.
Metropolitan Water Board.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
Port of London (Various Powers).
Rhyl Urban District Council.
Rotherham Extension.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Sidmouth Water.
South Metropolitan Gas.
Thames Conservancy.
Walthamstow Corporation.
Warrington Extension.
Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council.
Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier.
Wolverhampton Corporation.
Worksop Corporation.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Resolved, That the Amendments to Standing Orders, relative to Private Business, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved:—

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 4, lines 2.5 and 26, leave out "parish or parishes in which it is situate," and insert "city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban or rural district, and, in the case of a rural district, the parish or parishes in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such common or commonable land as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily; and."

Standing Order 4, line 26, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
(e) in the case of a Bill authorising the taking or compulsory user of the surface of any public park or public open space situate wholly or partly in any city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban district, or of any protected square mentioned in the Schedule to the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, the name or description of the park, open space or protected square, and of the city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban district in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such park, open space, or protected square as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily.

Standing Order 39, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
(17) Of every Bill affecting property vested in or under the management of the Forestry Commissioners or containing references to the said Commissioners, at the office of the Forestry Commission.

Standing Order 216, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
Where any such Bill originating in the House of Lords is whilst pending in that House referred to the examiners for examination as to the applicability of and compliance with Standing Orders of that House—

(a) the examiners shall report to this House whether any of the Standing Orders of this House relative to Private Bills are applicable to the Bill, and if applicable whether or not they have been complied with; and
(b) if the examiners report that any such Standing Orders are applicable and have not been complied with then, notwithstanding that the Bill has not yet been introduced into this House, the Select Committee on Standing Orders shall have power to report to this House whether such Standing Orders ought or ought not to he dispensed with.

Standing Order 275, line 18, leave out "17th day of April," and insert "27th clay of March."

Line 21, leave out "17th day of December," and insert "27th day of November."

Appendix (B), page 258, line 17, leave out "Omnibuses," and insert "Public Service Vehicles."

Lines 32 and 33, leave out "Trackless Trolley," and insert "Trolley Vehicle."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TEA SUPPLIES.

Mr. STUART: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the tea supplied to His Majesty's Army is wholly produced within the Empire; and, if not, whether he will ensure that only British Empire tea is purchased in future in order to support the Government's Buy British campaign?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): All tea bought by the War Department for the Army and the Air Force is of Empire origin.

ILLNESS (NOTIFICATION TO NEXT OF KIN).

Viscount BORODALE: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the case of Trooper Brown, 12th Lancers, which was brought to his notice on 23rd November, he will issue instructions that the initial telegram informing the next of kin of a man who is dangerously ill shall contain information of the nature of the man's illness or injuries?

Mr. COOPER: The Regulations provide for the nature of the man's illness to be stated in the telegram which is sent to the next of kin when a soldier is reported "dangerously ill." It is regretted that in this particular case this information was not given in the telegram, though it was supplied by a letter sent on the same day.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: In view of the long period of foreign service that this distinguished regiment is now undergoing, and the care that it takes to keep in touch with all their kith and kin at home, will the hon. Gentleman not see to it that these mistakes do not happen again when their men are away in hospital?

FIELD-MARSHALS.

Mr. COCKS: 4.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many Field-Marshals on the active list were employed and how many unemployed on 1st January, 1921, and on the same date in each succeeding year down to 1st January, 1931?

Mr. COOPER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The figures, which include the two Field-Marshals of the Indian Army, are as follow:—




*Employed.
Unemployed.


1921
…
5
5


1922
…
4
6


1923–24
…
3
6


1925
…
2
7


1926
…
3
5


1927–30
…
4
4


1931
…
2
6


* Includes the post of Constable of the Tower of London.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. WEDDERBURN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the financial results of the past Scottish fishing season and the extent to which this has been prejudiced by foreign imports of fish?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The total catch of the Scottish summer herring fishings, to which I assume the hon. Member's question to refer, had a value of £921,000 in 1931 as compared with £1,269,000 in 1930, a decrease of 27 per cent. The total catch amounted to only 528,540 crans in 1931 as compared with 802,500 crans in 1930, a decrease of 34 per cent. The decrease was due to scarcity of fish on the grounds and not to the competition of foreign imports.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) ACT, 1931.

Mr. WEDDERBURN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisations in Scotland have been approved by his Department under the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931; how many applications, and by whom, have
been refused approval; and what is the general policy which he proposes to adopt in this matter?

Sir A. SINCLAIFI: One organisation—the Scottish Travel Association—has been approved. Application for approval was received from one other organisation—the Scottish National Development Council—but my predecessor in office was not satisfied from the information supplied to him that this body fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Act. As regards the third part of the question, each application must be considered on its merits, and it is not possible to lay down any general policy.

IMPORTED MEAT SALES.

Captain SHAW: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of shops in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen which are exclusively engaged in the sale of imported butcher meat?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I regret that the desired information is not available.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the public assistance committee at Montrose are imposing test work on all applicants for able-bodied work; that this is the only committee in Scotland to impose such a test; and if he will take steps to end this practice?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am having inquiries made into the matter.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is there a demand for versatile and able-bodied lawyers in Montrose?

Mr. BUCHANAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mrs. Wilson, 303, Thistle Street, Glasgow, when being paid her relief from the Greenock Public Assistance Committee has had her 7s. 6d. from health insurance taken into account, and that this practice is illegal; and if he intends to take any steps to prosecute in this case?

Mr. SKELTON: I am aware that Mrs. Wilson is receiving relief at the rate of 7s. 6d. a week from the Greenock Public Assistance Committee. I am having inquiries made as to how this figure is arrived at.

GLASGOW RENT COURT (RE-ENROLLED CASES).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that since 1st January, 1931, until 18th November, 1931, 23,000 cases have been taken for re-enrolment at the Glasgow Rent Court; that for the same date 4,000 decrees have been granted against tenants; and that in many cases decree is granted without the sheriff having heard the cases; and if, in view of the present winter, he intends to take any steps to deal with this problem?

Mr. SKELTON: I have made inquiry and I am informed that between 1st January and 18th November, the number of cases re-enrolled at the Glasgow Rent Court was 11,825. During the same period 4,030 decrees were granted, of which 2,733 were in re-enrolled cases and 1,297 in new cases. No decrees are granted without the sheriff hearing parties except in cases where the defender does not appear or is not represented or where the parties have arranged matters between themselves; as regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 24th November.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As the number of decrees is on the increase, will not the hon. Gentleman take some extra steps to deal with the situation?

Mr. SKELTON: The number of removals or evictions which follow the decrees is extremely small, and the decrees themselves are merely a method of getting arrears of rent paid.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. DICKIE: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will consider the advisability of setting aside a definite percentage of the proceeds of the miners' welfare levy for the purpose of creating a fund to supplement the provision now made for the dependants of the victims of mining disasters?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I have no power to direct
the allocation of this fund. The duty of its allocation is vested in the committee set up for that purpose under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that an independent committee has recently been appointed to inquire generally into the work and the future scope of the Miners' Welfare Fund; and if he so desires, I will see that his suggestion is brought to the notice of that committee.

Mr. LUNN: Would it not be better to divert some of the funds that are already existing, with no dependants now living, rather than to take money from the Welfare Fund?

Mr. FOOT: Well, of course, that will not arise.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Mr. TINKER: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total cost to date of the committee appointed to deal with the coal mines amalgamation; and will he give separate figures for the chairman and each member of the committee?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The total expenditure incurred, up to the 30th November, in connection with the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission was approximately £20,000. The amount paid to the chairman, including expenses actually incurred in connection with travelling and subsistence allowances on the Treasury scale, was £6,375. Three of the other commissioners received in respect of remuneration and expenses £858, £764 and £705 respectively. The fifth commissioner is serving in an honorary capacity.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me for what period that is? Is it 12 months?

Mr. FOOT: Yes. I think the actual work commenced in December of last year, and the figures that I have given the hon. Member are to the 30th November last.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman not think they are a little bit overpaid for the output?

Mr. FOOT: On that, there may be many different opinions.

PITS CLOSED (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. TINKER: 16 and 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of mines closed down in Lancashire during 1930 and the number closed in 1931;
(2) the number of persons thrown out of work through the closing of the mines that were closed down in Lancashire during 1930 and 1931 to date?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Sixteen pits, employing 986 wage-earners, were closed during 1930 and have not since re-opened. The corresponding figures for 1931 (to 21st November) are 18 pits, employing 3,490 wage-earners.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say whether he has made any investigation as to the cause of the closing of the pits that have been closed this year?

Mr. TINKER: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, can he say whether, before they are closed, any questions are put to the Minister of Mines in regard to the closing of them?

Mr. FOOT: Not necessarily, nor is information given as to the reasons why any particular pit is closed down.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister has not attempted to answer my question, as to whether he has made any inquiries as to the cause of the closing of those pits this year.

Mr. FOOT: No inquiry has been made as to these particular pits. Unfortunately, the experience to which I have referred is not confined to Lancashire. The number of wage-earners this year is less than the number last year. I do not think there is any direct association between this and the operation of the Coal Mines Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: With reference to the hon. Gentleman's statement that the number of wage-earners has decreased, has the output of coal increased or decreased?

Mr. FOOT: It has decreased in this year as compared with last year.

HOURS OF WORK CONVENTION.

Mr. MANDER: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement in regard to the ratification of the recent International Labour Convention on the hours of work in coal mines?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Yes, Sir. At the request of His Majesty's Government, the International Labour Office is issuing invitations to the Governments of the six other countries chiefly interested, that is to say, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Netherlands and Poland, to attend a meeting at Geneva on 7th January for the purpose of an informal discussion upon the question of ratification.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Member intend to be there to represent the Government?

Mr. FOOT: Yes, it is my intention.

SIR ERNEST GOWERS (AMALGAMATIONS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines what outside bodies or persons were consulted in the appointment of chairman of the Mines Amalgamation Commission; and whether any conditions were imposed by them?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am informed that the Secretary for Mines in the Government of the day called into consultation a number of people whose experience and judgment would in his view be valuable. Such consultations are solely within the discretion and the responsibility of the Minister and are confidential. I am therefore unable to give any further information.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On whose invitation was Mr. Montagu Norman brought in to give advice?

Mr. FOOT: I have already stated, at the beginning of my answer, that the Secretary for Mines in the Government of the day called in consultation a number of people whose experience he thought it would be advisable to have, but I am advised that without the consent of the Minister and the persons who were called into consultation, I cannot give any further information.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is there any truth in the statement made by Mr. Shinwell that pressure was brought on him by the Governor of the Bank of England to appoint this particular gentleman as chairman?

Mr. FOOT: Upon that, of course, I am governed by the answer that I have already given. There was a number of
consultations, and, without the consent of the parties concerned, I cannot give the information asked for.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not a fact that Mr. Montagu Norman butted into this business?

Mr. FOOT: The facts are as I have stated.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. SOPER: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the recent low-temperature carbonisation plants erected on the Continent, using a British process, he will take steps to assist British coalowners to establish this industry in Great Britain, thus providing employment and profitably utilising small coal and producing clean smokeless fuel with the recovery of motor spirit and valuable oils?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am following the development of this process, in this country and elsewhere, with great interest, but I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 18th November to a question by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Has there been any advance at all in this matter in this country?

Mr. FOOT: Constant advances are being made. This is primarily a matter for the business interests concerned; it is not a Government activity, except in the way of encouragement and assistance by way of research.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

Mr. ALBERY: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines the value of refined petroleum products imported into this country during 1930, and the value of refined petroleum products produced in this country for the same period?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The declared value of the refined liquid petroleum products imported into this country during 1930 amounted to £42,160,187, according to the published trade returns. Home-produced and home-refined petroleum productions were about equal to 30 per cent. of the quantity of the imported products.
I am unable to give an accurate figure for the value of the home produced and home refined products, but it would represent less than 30 per cent. of the value of the imported.

Mr. ALBERY: Are the Government considering the imposition of a duty on these products to facilitate regaining the trade balance?

Mr. FOOT: That does not arise on this question.

BUY BRITISH CAMPAIGN.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is satisfied that the publicity secured by the Empire Marketing Board in their Buy British campaign is proportionate to the cost involved?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. The total cost to the Empire Marketing Board is expected to be about £12,000. My expert advisers report that the amount of publicity secured by this expenditure is so large and diversified as to render useless the professional standards by which they are accustomed to measure commercial advertising campaigns costing 10 or 20 times as much. I take this opportunity of thanking in the name of the Empire Marketing Board all those who have assisted this campaign, from the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Their generous and active support of the movement inaugurated by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has produced what is believed to be the greatest peace-time campaign upon a single theme ever conducted in this country.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it a fact that, in spite of all these efforts, sales have actually gone down?

Mr. THOMAS: No, and I am sure that no one will be more delighted than my hon. Friend to know that the reverse 1S the case.

Major NATHAN: Is it not the fact that the Buy British campaign is a serious factor in the increasingly adverse position of the sterling exchange?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot answer that question, but, if the implication of my
hon. Friend is against the Buy British campaign, then I will join issue with him.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what have been the results of the Buy British campaign?

Mr. THOMAS: Reports received by the Empire Marketing Board indicate that this campaign has literally pervaded the whole Kingdom. The Board are amply satisfied that the campaign, notably reinforced, as it has been, by the distributive trades, has effectively brought home to the country the patriotic duty of buying, so far as possible, the products of the home country in the first place, and, in the second, the products of the Empire overseas. The results of that achievement, which promise to continue long after the campaign is ended, can never be statistically measured. But ample inquiries made by the Empire Marketing Board in a wide variety of markets confirm what must, I believe, be the per sonal experience of Members of this House, that the public's will to purchase has by this campaign been directed to a dramatic extent towards home and over-sea sources of supply.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) sailed to America in a German ship?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will take steps to make known in the Dominions and Colonies the publicity in favour of their products secured by the present Buy British campaign?

Mr. THOMAS: The Empire Marketing Board, with the assistance of the over-sea Governments concerned, have long devoted careful attention to securing that their work on behalf of Empire products should be understood by those in whose interests it was primarily undertaken. Active steps are being taken and will be continued to keep the oversea Press in touch with the progress of the Buy British campaign.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that British instead of American typewriters are used in Government offices?

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS DUTY.

Mrs. COPELAND: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large amount of fine china (safeguarded) which has recently been imported from the Far East, the volume of such importations will in future be taken into consideration instead of only the weight?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Particulars of the weight and declared value of china, including translucent pottery and all pottery known as china or porcelain, other than electrical ware, imported into the United Kingdom are regularly published in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."

Mr. HALES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the duty on china will be raised to 50 per cent. so that all pottery will be under the same duty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: At present the duty is on the basis of 28s. per cwt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be possible for the Board of Trade to consider a change in the duty from duty on weight to duty on value?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That would depend on how far the imports come within the definition of abnormal imports.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the heavier china is the cheapest, and that, therefore, if the duty is put on weight it will spread the duty more fairly?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I press my question, and would the President of the Board of Trade consider receiving a deputation from the trade on this point?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am finding it difficult to receive all the deputations that want to see me, but I need hardly say that my right hon. and gallant Friend has always a special call on my time.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will define more clearly what is meant by the terms overcoats and mantles in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) (No. 1) Order, dated 23rd November, 1931?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chorley on 2nd December.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the word "mantles" has no longer any real significance in describing women's wearing apparel, and will he not take steps to cover every type of women's imported made-up garments, made from the cloth covered by the duty, in exactly the same manner as men's garments are covered?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot add anything further to my previous answer.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in order to remove doubts as to the interpretation and extent of the Abnormal Imports Regulations, he will state whether import duties are being charged on proofed garments and proofed cloth?

Major ELLIOT: The Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) No. 1 Order, 1931, excepts proofed garments comprised in the description "Overcoats and Mantles" from the charge of duty under the Order, but proofed garments, if any, falling within the description "Men's and Boys' suits," etc., would be chargeable with the duty. Tissues in the piece of a description included in the Order are not relieved from the duty by reason of being proofed.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in order to remove doubts as to the interpretation and extent of the Abnormal imports Regulations, he will state whether import duties are being charged on toy teddy-bears, imitation pearl beads, Christmas tree ornaments, dolls' house toys made of glass, and mirror glass in wooden or metal frames?

Major ELLIOT: None of the articles mentioned would be held liable to duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Orders, 1931, Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. LAMBERT: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute negotiations with foreign countries whose exports are affected by the Ab-
normal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and the Emergency Customs Duties Bill to secure tariff reductions for British exports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not consider that the emergency duties imposed or contemplated under the Measures referred to are suitable as a basis for negotiations of the nature contemplated by my right hon. Friend.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether greaseproof paper can be manufactured in this country in quantities sufficient to meet the normal home demand?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the manufacture of paper of the kind mentioned is being developed in this country, and I am making further inquiries as to the progress made.

Major NATHAN: Is it not a fact that it would take upwards of 12 months for paper manufacturers in this country to divert their machinery to the use of such paper, and that, if manufactured here, it would be inferior in quality for its purpose to that which is imported?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Always decry British manufactures! My word, we have got some people in this House. [Interruption.]

Mr. STONES: 100.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that in paper trade circles tissue paper is always defined as paper of 7 pounds per ream, 20 inches by 30 inches, of 480 sheets or under, whether the qualification in regard to weight exceeding 10 pounds to the ream of 480 sheets, 20 inches by 30 inches, applies to tissue paper?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any tissue paper falling within the terms of the definition contained in the Order is dutiable, but tissue paper the weight of which is equivalent to not more than 10 pounds to the ream of 480 sheets measuring 30 inches by 20 inches when fully extended is not liable to duty.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: 75.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that silk and artificial silk hose are being imported without the seam sewn up the back of the stocking and that in
this way the recent dumping Order is evaded by only paying duty on tissue; and what steps he intends to take?

Major ELLIOT: I am not aware that unfinished stockings of silk or artificial silk are being imported without payment of the duty imposed by the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931. Such articles are liable to the new duty.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: If the hon. and gallant Member will inquire in the West End of London, he will find that such is the fact.

Mr. REMER: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that there are many thousands of stockings not paying duty coming into this country?

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will give me information of any such goods, I will make inquiries.

DEAD SEA PRODUCTS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and nature of the products of the Dead Sea imported into this country during the present year; and to what countries were any re-exported?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 97.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the shipments of bromine and other products by the Dead Sea Company to this country since May of this year; and to what destination have these products, wholly or partly, been re-exported?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the six months ended October, 1931, the only chemicals imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from Palestine were 2,480 cwts. of bromine and bromides. No such imports were registered during the first four months of this year. I am unable to say whether these imports came from the Dead Bea Company, or to which countries all or part may have been re-exported.

TEA.

Sir A. KNOX: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of pounds of tea of non-Empire origin imported into this country in each of the years 1920, 1925, and 1930?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Ms. Hore-Belisha): The total weight of tea im-
ported into the United Kingdom during the years 1920, 1925, and 1930, consigned from foreign countries, was 57 million lbs., 65 million lbs., and 96 million lbs., respectively.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the progressive increase in the imports of foreign tea, will not the Government consider the advisability of putting an import duty on foreign tea?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There has also been a progressive increase in the import of tea from Empire countries, and that now represents over 82½ per cent.

Sir A. KNOX: But is it not true that the percentage of foreign tea is now very much greater than it was 10 years ago?

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take with regard to the communication he has received from the Empire tea associations in the interest of these associations, in view of the increasing importation of tea grown outside the Empire?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have noted the representations made by the associations referred to but am unable to make any further statement at present.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the import of Dutch-grown teas has increased from 32,000,000 pounds in 1921 to 76,000,000 in 1930; and will he take immediate steps to impose a duty, in view of the fact that Holland imposes a duty of 7d. a pound on tea reaching her ports?

Mr. SMITHERS: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the imports of tea from foreign sources, having increased from 32,000,000 lbs. in 1921 to 85,000,000 lbs. in 1930, have resulted in severe loss to Indian and Ceylon growers; and whether, in view of the fact that ample tea for all Empire requirements is grown within the Empire, he will extend a measure of protection to Empire growers?

Sir F. HALL: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the
increase in the importation of foreign-grown tea into the United Kingdom and the correspondingly reduced imports from India and Ceylon, and with a view to improving the position of the tea producers in India and Ceylon, he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax on the importation of foreign-grown teas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already stated in reply to similar recent questions, I am unable to make any statement on this subject at present.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the large increase in these importations from Holland, especially during the last three years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, my attention has been drawn to it.

Sir F. HALL: Will this matter receive further consideration in the month of April?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be happy to answer that question then.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter on the Budget at that time?

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation on this question?

Captain HEILGERS: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Java tea is being blended with Empire tea and sold as Empire blend during the Buy British campaign, he will take steps to prevent the sale thereof under this misleading description?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will be glad to consider them.

Sir J. FERGUSON: 125.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give statistics to show to what extent the requirements of the United Kingdom and the Empire can be provided for by Empire-grown tea; and what is the percentage of Empire tea imported in 1920 and 1930 compared with the total imports for these years?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The quantity of tea produced within the British Empire is greater than the consumption of tea within the Empire, but the Empire does not produce tea of all qualities and flavours. Of the total imports of tea into the United Kingdom during the years 1920 and 1930, the proportions consigned from British countries were 86.9 and 82.3 per cent, respectively.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Does not that show a very large increase within that period of years, out of all proportion to the quantity used in this country?

IMPORTS.

Mr. SOPER: 34 and 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the values of ornamental glass imported during the months of August, September, October, and November for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively;
(2) the quantity and average value per dozen of table forks imported during the months of August, September, October, and November, for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931; and can he give similar particulars with regard to exports of British forks for the same period?

Brigadier-General NATION: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of doors of foreign manufacture imported into this country for the most recent month for which figures are available; and what the figures were for the same month last year?

Mr. GLOSSOP: 110.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of imported mohair-pile table covers for the last month for which figures are available, and the corresponding figures for the same period in 1930?

Mr. RUNC1MAN: I regret that the desired information is not available, as the imports and exports of these goods are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether seeing that the imports of brushes and brooms have considerably increased during the first 10 months of 1931 as compared with the same period in 1929, he is prepared to include this industry in the next list of duties under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

Mr. STOREY: 41 and 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that illuminating glassware is usually made in the same works and the same furnaces as domestic glassware, and that the order, under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, which applies to domestic glassware only is likely to lead foreign manufacturers to concentrate upon dumping illuminating glassware, the imports of which have been steadily increasing; and whether, in view of these facts, he will include illuminating glassware in the next order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act;
(2) whether, in view of the large imports of writing and printing papers from foreign countries during October and as British mills in depressed areas are only working at from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. of their full output, he will consider including these papers in the next Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

Mr. BOULTON: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the abnormal importation of sheet lead and lead pipes into this country which is competing with the home industry; and whether he will consider taking steps to safeguard this industry?

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of fancy cotton hosiery in 1930 were five times as great as the imports in 1928, and that imports of fancy woollen hosiery in 1930 were nearly twice as great as the imports in 1928; and whether he will deal with these imports under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?

Mr. PERKINS: 93.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that a duty has been imposed on woollen materials in the piece and that no duty has been put on the finished article, such as bathing costumes, etc., he will consider the advisability of such a duty?

Sir PARK GOFF: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the quantities of foreign cement imported into this country during the past six weeks; and, seeing that this abnormal import has brought to a standstill the cement factories on the Medway, with resulting loss of employment to a number of people,
whether he will take steps to protect this industry?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 102.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state whether needles will be included in the next Order issued under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, in view of the considerable increase in importations in the last two months?

Mr. LYONS: 104
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his attention has been called to the recent imports of elastic webbing; and whether he proposes to take any action in this regard under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931;
(2) if his attention has been called to the imports of cotton hose and underwear; and whether he proposes to take any action in this regard under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931;
(3) if his attention has been called to the fact that out of 18,259 machines in the silk industry in Great Britain 10,356 were idle in November, 1931; and if it is his intention to take any action with regard to this industry under the Abnormal Importations Act, 1931?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 106.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the telegram, of which a copy has been sent to him, from the bright-steel bar manufacturers to the effect that they ask for security against foreign competition and emphasise that, if included under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, they will raise no objection to a duty on their raw materials, including black bars and billets; and whether he will now impose the duties referred to?

Mr. RATCLIFFE: 109.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increase of the importation of artificial silk tissue, pure or mixed, in October, 1931, 1,741,624 lbs. weight, as compared with October, 1930, 1,322,844 lbs. weight; and if it is his intention to apply the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to these articles?

Mr. REMER: 113.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has
been called to the abnormal increase of silk-piece goods, wholly of silk, imported in August, 1931, to 3,204,319 square yards from 2,789,177 in 1930; in September to 4,638,814 square yards from 3,391,646 in September, 1930; in October, 1931, to 3,743,044 square yards from 3,696,999 square yards in 1930, and 3,353,756 square yards in 1929; if he is aware that there are large stocks in Lyons unsold, and that the bankers are ordering the manufacturers to sell these stocks at any price available; and if he intends to bring these goods under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?

Mr. HANNON: 115.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the Cold Rolled Brass and Copper Association, embodying details of abnormal imports of brass, copper and nickel silver articles with serious effect upon employment in Birmingham; and if he proposes to make an early Order extending the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to these industries?

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 121.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the competition from which the English paper mills are suffering at the present time, he will consider the extension of the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to include printing paper, news paper and writing paper in addition to the categories of paper stated in the No. 2 Order annexed to the said Act?

Viscount EDNAM: 128.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the economic position of the iron and steel industry as reflected in the financial reports of its operation now becoming available, he will take action before Christmas, under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, to prevent forestalling of the effect of more permanent measures?

Captain DOWER: 134.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that 250,000 dozen felt-hat hoods from Monza, Italy, have been imported into this country during the last few weeks, the bulk of which were sent by parcel post to avoid the figures appearing in the Trade and Navigation Returns; and, in view of this abnormal importation of felt hoods, will he reconsider his previous decision and impose a duty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the House has been informed on many occasions recently, it would not be proper for me to give any indication of what articles may or may not be included in any future Orders that may be made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does slot the procedure which the President of the Board of Trade has bad to adopt show the necessity of setting up a tariff commission?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that granite will be included in the next list?

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In order to save the time of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prohibit all imports?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not all these questions indicate a good deal of discontent with the Government?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask when we may expect to get, a reply?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of the Government to protect the lace industry from foreign competition; and, if so, when the lace duties will be reimposed?

Mr. BOULTON: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the trade of scales and handle manufacturing in fancy timbers is now experiencing foreign competition; and, in view of the unemployment caused, will he consider taking such immediate steps as are necessary to safeguard this industry?

Mr. LEVY: 101.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that cotton yarn from the Continent is still being imported into this country in large quantities, underselling our own yarn manufacturers by 1½d. per pound; and what action does he propose to take to stop this competition?

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 111.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to prevent the dumping of iron and steel products
into this country at prices substantially lower than they are sold in the country of origin?

Lord SCONE: 119.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider imposing a tariff on imported toys and games, seeing that the annual value of such imports exceeds £2,000,000?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only powers I have to impose duties are those under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, and in this regard I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Members for Barnsbaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), and South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 25th November.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that these duties prevented the lace trade of Nottingham from being wiped out; and will he use his influence with the Cabinet to see that they are reimposed at, the earliest possible moment?

Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop dumping as apart from abnormal importation?

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation from the industries concerned?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered a question on that subject this afternoon. With regard to the lace trade, the condition of the trade will, of course, be taken into consideration. As for the difference between dumping and abnormal importation, I am afraid I am not ready with a definition.

Mr. MAXTON: The previous reply, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, had reference to deputations from industries which do not want tariffs. What my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) asked was whether he would receive a deputation from those who do want tariffs?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: From my recent experience, I should say the time absorbed by deputations from those who do want tariffs is just as great as from those who do not.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish figures which will show the imports of elastic cords, webs, braids,
and fabrics in the months of September, October, and any successive periods in the month of November of this year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the months of September and October, 1931, the total declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of elastic cords, webs, braid and fabrics not comprised under other headings, such as apparel, in the Import and Export List, was £20,088 and £24,160, respectively.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will permit the importation into this country, duty free, of Swiss embroideries or organdies processed from grey cotton piece-goods made in and exported from this country?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 114.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, when he is considering measures to check the abnormal importations of manufactured cotton goods commonly known as coloured cotton, he will, in view of the advisability of introducing some system to cater for British yarn sent abroad to be specially dyed, make provision for this?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: These matters will be borne in mind if and when the occasion arises.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative imports of- wire and wire products during recent weeks and during a similar period in 1930; and whether he will deal with this matter under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?

Sir H. CROFT: 96.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the depression in the wire industry; whether there are abnormal imports of wire and wire manufactures; and if he intends to take action?

Major THOMAS: 112.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prevent the abnormal importations of wire and wire products which can be manufactured in this country?

Mr. STOURTON: 127.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the abnormal imports recently of wire and wire products, he will consider imposing a duty on these articles at an early date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of recent imports of wire and wire manufactures of iron and steel will be found in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." For the rest I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given on the 25th November to the hon. Members for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), and South-East Leeds (Major Milner).

Captain BARTON: 103.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of hemp line and tow yarns, cordage, cables, etc., of hemp or like material under a quarter-inch in diameter, binder and reaper twine, and other descriptions, respectively, for November, 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of these articles during November will be published on Friday in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."

Lieut. - Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 116.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of the imports of women's shoes into this country for each of the past three months, as compared with the corresponding periods last year; and the export figures of such shoes for the two periods in question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. and gallant Friend will find particulars of the imports and exports of women's boots and shoes in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." Figures for the month of November will be published on Friday next.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: If these figures prove that there is a considerable reduction in exports and a considerable increase in imports, will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to this case in making further Orders under the Abnormal Importations Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement in anticipation of the drawing up of the next Order.

Mr. ALBERY: 118.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of newsprint imported for the year ended December, 1930, from the British Dominions and from foreign countries; and
the amount of coal which would be used in producing the foreign importation if produced in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will find detailed particulars of the imports of news printing paper into the United Kingdom during the year 1930, consigned from British and foreign countries, in Volume II of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of tike United Kingdom" for 1930 (p. 272). I have not the information necessary to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. ALBERY: If the right hon. Gentleman has figures for the imports, is it not a simple calculation to find out bow much coal would be required?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid we have no means of ascertaining that.

Mr. HARRIS: Will my right hon. Friend consult the newspapers about this matter before coming to a decision?

Mr. CROSS: 122 and 123.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, as far as figures are yet available, there has been greater abnormality in the quantity of imports of woollen blankets or of cotton blankets, stating the dates to which his figures refer;
(2) the quantities and values of cotton sheets and cotton blankets, respectively, which were imported into this country in August, September, October and November, in each of the years 1924, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of cotton sheets and cotton blankets are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom. I regret, therefore, that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 126.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total imports in tonnage and value of special steels during the months of September, October, and November, 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of special steels are published in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." The accounts for November will be published on Friday.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give, for the first 10 months of 1929 to 1931, the total number of foreign vessels cleared from British ports to other British ports, together with the net registered tonnage of the same?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available, but for the whole year 1929 the foreign vessels that cleared with cargo at ports of the United Kingdom for other ports in the British Empire numbered 321 with a tonnage of 720,701 tons net, the corresponding figures for 1930 being 319 vessels of 697,512 tons net.

Mr. THOMPSON: Does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that this large tonnage should be carried in British bottoms?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So long as we can retain such a large proportion of our trade without any of these restrictions, I believe the shipping industry is prepared to continue its competition.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. CLARRY: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the monthly statistics on iron and steel not being available until five or six weeks from the end of the month, and the desirability of the iron and steel industry keeping in close touch with imports and exports, he will consider making available his departmental statistics at more frequent intervals?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports and exports of iron and steel are published monthly in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" on the tenth working day of the month following that to which the accounts relate.

Mr. CLARRY: Would it be possible for these figures to be made public to the industry concerned soon after the 10 days?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are published with the general figures 10 days after the end of the month and are then open to everybody to read.

Mr. CLARRY: Is it not a fact that the figures are obtained in 10 days in the Ministry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We cannot do it in a shorter period than of one month.

BEER.

Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER - CLAY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the beer, appearing in Government returns as imported beer without reference to the country of origin, is manufactured in the British Isles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the table on page 41 of the Second Volume of the Annual Statement of Trade for 1930, from which it appears that of 1,593,588 standard barrels of beer imported in 1930 1,564,512 barrels came from the Irish Free State and seven barrels came from other British countries.

FOREIGN DRESS GOODS.

Mr. LEVY: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a merchant buying dresses of silk content abroad pays 33⅓ per cent. on importing them into this country on the whole value of the dresses, whereas a private individual only pays on the silk content, and that this difference acts to the disadavantage of British traders; and what action he proposes to take?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a question on this subject addressed to him by the hon. Member for the Clayton Division of Manchester (Mr. Flanagan) on the 26th November.

MACCLESFIELD SILK.

Mr. REMER: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in several of the large stores in London and the provinces in connection with the Buy British movement, large signs are exhibited with the words Genuine Macclesfield Silk,, whereas only one piece of the silk so exhibited was manufactured in Macclesfield and the remainder was of foreign origin; and what steps he will take to deal with such cases of misrepresentation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will furnish the with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will consider whether action can be taken.

Mr. REMER: If the right hon. Gentleman will go into any of these stores, he will find that this is happening.

RASPBERRY PULP.

Lord SCONE: 120.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that imports of raspberry pulp shall in future appear separately in the Board of Trade Returns, in view of the fact that such imports are making it impossible for the home grower to obtain an economic price for his produce?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has recently been decided that, as from the commencement of next year, the general import heading "Fruit not liable to duty as such and fruit pulp, preserved without sugar—other than canned or bottled," shall be sub-divided so as to distinguish (1) Strawberries, (2) Blackcurrants, and (3) Other sorts. Consideration will be given to making provision for the separate enumeration of other descriptions of fruits, should the imports during 1932 be large enough to justify further subdivision of the heading.

Lord SCONE: May I urge upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity of including raspberries?

RETAIL STORES (UNITED KINGDOM GOODS).

Mr. MABANE: 124.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the figures in the possession of his Department that indicate, either for groups of retail stores or individual retail stores, the percentage in value of their stocks purchased in the United Kingdom?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information is not available.

IMPORTED MILK.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 131.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the amounts of liquid milk imported into this country in September, October, and November of this year, respectively, at what ports did the milk churns arrive, and to whom were they consigned?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the months of September and October, 1931, the only fresh liquid milk imported into the United Kingdom was consigned from the Irish Free State and amounted to
3,330 cwts. and 4,589 cwts. respectively, principally over the land boundary into Northern Ireland. In addition, 555 cwts. and 223 cwts. respectively, of unsweetened preserved milk (other than condensed and powdered milk) were imported into the United Kingdom during these months at the ports of Middlesbrough, Hull, Leith, Manchester and London. I am unable to give the names of the consignees. Particulars for November are not yet available.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Was there no liquid milk imported to Newhaven port during October or November?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman the best answer I can.

Mr. MAXTON: Is is the fact that the home supply at this moment does not meet the demand?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is probably true.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MIGRANTS, AUSTRALIA.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the progress of the Royal Commission inquiring into migrant settlers' affairs in Australia?

Mr. H. THOMAS: I understand that the Royal Commission is at present taking the evidence of the settlers, which should be completed by the end of January. The evidence of the official witnesses is expected to be taken in February.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the deplorable position of these settlers, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the States and the Commonwealth Governments to fulfil their pledges to the men?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be unwise to make any overtures when an inquiry is taking place, because it would possibly be misunderstood.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Speak up; we cannot hear the reply.

Mr. MAXTON: We are interested in this, too.

Mr. THOMAS: I gave precisely the same reply that I gave to my hon. Friend last week, that it would be unwise to interfere.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that over 1,000 unemployed emigrants from this country to Western Australia are living under conditions of hardship; that work is impossible to obtain; and that refusal to come to relief camps renders them liable to a charge of vagrancy; and what action he proposes to take to help these fellow countrymen?

Mr. THOMAS: I fear that it is undoubtedly the case that there are a number of migrants from the United Kingdom in Western Australia who are unemployed, but I have no reason to believe that the steps which have been taken to assist the unemployed there differentiate in any way between the unemployed who are migrants and those who are native born. The Government of Western Australia have taken steps to cope with the problem of unemployment there, and it is for them to decide what is the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last two parts of my question.

Mr. THOMAS: I have first to ascertain the accuracy of my hon. Friend's statement. I do not doubt it, but I have not had it confirmed yet. When I get the information, I will consider it in the light of the answer.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference between migrants and native-born, but is not there a difference in responsibility to these two classes?

Mr. THOMAS: None; I have emphasised clearly on many occasions that if this Government, or indeed any Government, accepted a responsibility which rightly belongs to the Dominions, it would be a profound mistake and would lead to considerable misunderstanding.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hold in my hand a cablegram sent to me this morning—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir A. KNOX: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps he has yet taken to prepare the proposals to be laid before the coming Imperial Conference?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what preparations have been made for the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference; and what arrangements have been made for continuing such preparations during his absence in South Africa?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on these matters before the House rises.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the question of the trade of the Colonial Empire be included in these proposals?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of requesting the Committee of Imperial Defence to state what increase in the armaments of this country will be necessary, in view of the uncertainty of the pooled security of the League of Nations being realised as disclosed by recent events in Manchuria?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I see no reason to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. MANDER: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to get ready for the next war, in view of what is happening in Manchuria?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. COCKS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether our representatives will be instructed before attending the World Disarmament Conference next year to propose an all-round 25 per cent. cut in expenditure on armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2nd December, in reply to questions by my right hon. Friend
the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis).

Mr. MANDER: 139.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration has been given by the Government, in connection with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, to the possibility of establishing an international force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): All questions connected with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference are receiving the fullest consideration by His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement on particular problems.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this question is not overlooked?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CIVIL SERVICE ROYAL OOMMISSION (REPORT).

Major NATHAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has reached any conclusions upon the Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Civil Service?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply on this subject given on the 19th November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Sir A. Pownall).

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. LEONARD: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons employed in the Customs and Excise Department in the weeks ending 31st October and 28th November respectively?

Major ELLIOT: The total staff employed in the Customs and Excise Department on the 31st October, 1931, and the 28th November, 1931, respectively was 11,886 and 11,866.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD PRICES (FARTHINGS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether,
in view of the slight fluctuations in the price of bread which are likely under the quota system, he will arrange for additional farthings to be coined and put into circulation, so that retailers may be enabled to charge actual prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I see no reason to suppose that there will be more numerous fluctuations in the price of the loaf under the wheat quota scheme than there are at present. Moreover, there appears to be no special demand for farthings at times when the price of the 2 lb. loaf involves an odd farthing, as it frequently does under present conditions.

Mr. McENTEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed any increased demands for pounds?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to carry out the recommendations in Section XII of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, 1920, regarding the taxation of co-operative societies?

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the co-operative movement now numbers 423 affiliated societies and has 3,000,000 members, he will consider setting up a small committee to devise means for bringing the profits of these societies under Schedule D of the Income Tax, as recommended by the Royal Commission of 1920?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) on the 24th November last.

Sir A. BEIT: If I put down this question after the next Budget will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say that I am asking him to anticipate the following year's Budget?

LAND VALUES TAX (VALUATION).

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state whether it is the intention of the
Government to abandon Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, which relates to land valuation?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the discontinuance of expenditure on the valuation of land under the provisions of Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. LAMBERT: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now define the position of the Government in respect of the land tax duties imposed by Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have given careful consideration to the question of proceeding with the valuation provided for in Part III of the Finance Act, 1931. As the House knows it was estimated that the total cost of the valuation would be from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. A certain amount of money has already been spent but the great bulk of the expenditure is still to come. In the meantime the need for economy has become paramount and the Government feel that, in present financial conditions, they would not be justified in incurring further expenditure upon an object which, in any case, could not produce any return for a considerable time.
Without prejudice therefore to the merits of the plan, which have not been under consideration, the Government propose to suspend work upon the valuation and to disperse the temporary staff which has been engaged in connection with it. The necessary legislation will be included in next year's Finance Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: Seeing that the tax was imposed by Parliament, and machinery set up in order that it might be effective, under what power does the right hon. Gentleman act in suspending the will of the House, as expressed in the last Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. I am not suspending the tax. That would be a matter for legislation, as I have already explained.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the present Lord Privy Seal said that it was his desire, under this tax, to restore God's land to the people?

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not, as a matter of fact, suspending the tax, because he is suspending the machinery by which alone the tax can be made effective, and under what power is he doing that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not suspending the tax; I am only suspending the valuation.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: How can the right hon. Gentleman impose a tax if he does not know the valuation on which it is to be imposed?

Mr. RHYS: Will it be necessary to make any return to Somerset House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the unsatisfactory answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment on the first opportunity.

ENTERTAINMFSITS DUTY.

Mr. POTTER: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the hardships caused by the additional Entertainments Duty imposed upon exhibitors in the cinema business by the supplementary Budget of September last, he will consider the question of exempting seats up to 6d. from such liability?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 59 and 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his attention has been called to the hardships in working-class districts by the re-imposition of the Entertainments Duty on seats up to and including 6d.; and whether he will consider any revision of this tax;
(2) whether he is aware that the Entertainments Duty upon 3d. seats is equal to a 33⅓ per cent. tax; whether he is prepared to impose a tax of 33⅓ per cent. upon all seats over 2s.; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the tax upon the cheaper seats?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind the hon. Members that the revised scale of Entertainments Duty has only been in operation since the 9th November and it would be premature at this stage to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the new rates on entertainment proprietors or the public. The incidence of this duty, as of other duties, will be considered in the ordinary course in connection with the next Budget but I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject at the present time.

Mr. POTTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable revenue is being lost to the State having regard to the imposition of this extra tax on the cheaper seats?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of it.

Mr. MACLEAN: is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry the same imposition, 33⅓ per cent., if he can justify it, on to the dearer seats as well?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of percentage is not uniform now, for instance on the 6d. seats it is only 16⅔ per cent.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is it the policy of the Government to impose the heaviest burden on the working classes?

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST).

Mr. POTTER: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the difficulty in ascertaining from the national accounts the total expenditure and the total revenue of each Department of State, he will take steps to have these accounts so framed that such information can be more easily obtainable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information in question is given in statements appended to the Estimates of each Department, and also in the Public Departments: Gross and Net Cost Return, which is published annually.

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause to be prepared figures of national income and outgo in respect of the year 1930–31, and an estimate in respect of the
current year, on similar lines to those given in Parliamentary Paper No. 93, of Session 1909?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The preparation of a Return on the lines suggested would involve more labour and expense than I could regard as justified by the results. The information desired in respect of the year 1930–31 can be obtained from the Finance Accounts, 1930, already published (House of Commons Paper 106/1931), and from the Public Departments: Gross and Net Cost Return, which will be available early in the new year.

ARMAMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total expenditure to date upon armaments by this country since the signing of the Peace Treaty in 1919?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the defence Estimates include provision for such objects as pensions for retired officers and men, civil aviation, etc. The defence expenditure proper for 1930–31 amounted, after the elimination of such non-military items, to approximately £92,000,000. For earlier years I would refer him to the published Appropriation Accounts of the relative Departments, but he will understand that for the reason which I have just given the figures must be proportionately adjusted.

DOUBLE TAX (RELIEF).

Major NATHAN: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether negotiations other than with Sweden and Switzerland have been concluded or are on foot for reciprocal arrangements relating to taxation as envisaged by Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930, have not yet been made with any countries other than Sweden and Switzerland, but negotiations are on foot in a number of cases.

Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if it be not contrary to the public interest, with what countries further negotiations are on foot?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be advisable to answer that question just at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS ABROAD (TAX).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, steps His Majesty's Government are taking with regard to the proposal to impose a tax on all persons leaving this country merely for the purposes of holidays in foreign countries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have taken note of the suggestion n made by my hon. Friend.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same reply was given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his consideration of the question?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONETARY SITUATION.

Mr. COCKS: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take the initiative in calling together a world conference on gold or, failing that., whether he will take steps to call together a conference of all the countries now off the Gold Standard to discuss the present monetary situation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) on the 3rd December.

Mr. COCKS: Have the Government any policy on this subject, or are they following in the footsteps of the last Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER INDUSTRY (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Sir J. FERGUSON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what estimate is made of the amount of British capital invested in the rubber industry on which no profit is returned and of the consequent loss to the Exchequer in Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC ICE PATROL.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the proportion of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol paid by His Majesty's Government is to be increased; and by whom that increased proportion has been paid in the past?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The scale of contributions to this service was originally fixed by the International Safety Conference of 1913–14. The 1929 Safety Conference revised the scale to represent more equitably the interests of the contributing countries in the service. This revision involves an increase of the contributions of this and certain other countries, and a corresponding decrease in those of certain others.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUCTIONEERS AND ESTATE AGENTS (BANKRUPTCIES).

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies in the auctioneers' and estate agents' profession during the past 12 months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ending 30th November last, there were 30 bankruptcies of auctioneers, house and estate agents.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER THAMES (PILOTAGE EXEMPTIONS).

Mrs. RUNGE: 130.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for exempting vessels of a certain class from the need for carrying British pilots in the Thames; whether, in the case of Dutch lighters, such exemption is due to reasons applicable to all such vessels or those possessing a special character; whether all such permitted exemptions are reciprocal in the case of nations whose ships benefit thereby; and, if not, what is the reason for differentiation of treatment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The exceptions under the Pilotage Act, 1913, from compulsory pilotage in the London Pilotage District of vessels which are under 50 tons gross or are employed in coasting or home trade and are under 3,500 tons gross apply to all vessels, British and foreign. The main reason for the exceptions was doubtless
familiarity with the waters. I understand that in most foreign countries there are no exceptions from compulsory pilotage, but under the Pilotage Act there is no power to discriminate between British and foreign ships.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED RUSSIAN BUTTER.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 140.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to recent Russian official statements as to the insanitary conditions of many of the farms where milk is produced in Russia; and what steps are being taken to see that the large quantities of butter which are being imported into this country from Soviet Russia are manufactured under hygienic conditions such as are required from British and Dominion farmers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): My right hon. Friend is aware of statements in the Press on this matter. Russian butter with other foods is subject to examination on arrival under the Imported Food Regulations and the Preservatives Regulations. My Department has not investigated the conditions under which the butter is produced, but arrangements were made last summer for samples of the butter to be examined bacteriologically. The reports on these examinations were satisfactory, but my right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of further similar examinations.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the facts referred to are taken from a Russian official statement, and does he not think his Department should take notice of official statements with regard to an article of food?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware of that fact, and the Department has taken notice.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that any examination of milk products is quite unsatisfactory and unreliable and that, in order to get it reliable, you must examine the conditions of production at the source.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Why is it not necessary to examine at the source of supply in foreign countries seeing it is necessary in this country?

Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why are different conditions required for British and Dominion farmers?

Mr. BROWN: My Department is concerned with the quality of the butter, and examination has beer made and will be pursued if necessary.

DIVISIONS.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to raise with you, Sir, a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) at the conclusion of the Indian Debate one evening last week, so that we may have your guidance and ruling on the matter. The group with which I am associated feel that on certain occasions we have views that we wish to have recorded in the House. It may be a minority view, but it is one that is important to us. We do not want to make ourselves a nuisance—at least, we do not want to make ourselves more of a nuisance than is necessary to record our point of view. Therefore, while upon occasions we shall call a Division, we recognise that the numbers in our Lobby would be so small as to make it undesirable that the rest of the House should be put to the inconvenience of going into the Lobbies. A reading of the rules and regulations and a consultation with Erskine May indicate that, while the practice has fallen into abeyance, it is within your power, without taking a Division, to record in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who dissent from the majority view of the House and I should like to have your ruling on the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has stated quite accurately that a Standing Order was passed in 1888 giving the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, the right, if in his opinion a Division was unnecessarily called, to take a vote of the House or the Committee by calling upon Members who dissent to stand in their place. Under that Standing Order, it was required that the number of Members who had risen should be declared by the Chair and their names taken down in the House and printed in the Division list. That Standing Order, as the hon. Member knows, was repealed
in 1919, since when the Speaker or Chairman has not had that power. He has had the power of asking Members who dissent to rise in their places, but he has not had the power of taking the names of those who dissent or having their names published in the Division list, and, in order to do that, it would be necessary to amend the Standing Order and bring it into the same form as it was when it was repealed in 1919. The hon. Member is not right in saying that the Speaker or Chairman has that power unless there is a Standing Order to that effect.

Mr. MAXTON: My reading of the Standing Order indicates that after a Division has been taken, whether by passing through the Lobbies or by Members standing up, it is necessary for you, Sir, to declare the result of the Division, and on the Standing Order it seems to be well within your province to declare that the Ayes or the Noes have it, as the case may be, with the Members for so-and-so dissenting, which would achieve the end of recording their votes. I would suggest that you consider whether it is not within your power to do so.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that that is not in my power without an Amendment of the Standing Orders.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Statute of Westminster Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DRNNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Minister to apply Act.)

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "considers that it is desirable so to do," and to insert instead thereof the words:
is satisfied that production in the United Kingdom of fruit, vegetables, or flowers will be thereby increased, or that the importation of any such articles, being articles of luxury, is not in the public interest.
I move the Amendment because we are not satisfied with the Bill, which leaves the power to select entirely in the hands of the Minister when he deems it desirable to choose any of the articles in the Schedule. Yesterday the Minister, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
This Bill … is very definitely related to the general national emergency, andponit3 to the need of taking every possible step to reduce the imports of commodities which can either, on the one hand, be produced within this country, or, on the other hand, can be properly done without altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1539, Vol. 260.]
The Minister expressed the intention of the Bill in those words, and we insist that the Amendment which we are moving will give a more direct effect to the Minister's intention than the words which we wish to leave out. If I may be allowed to sketch the procedure under the Bill, the Minister is given special powers, as in a previous Bill dealing with new taxation, to issue Orders-in-Council specifying what articles are to be selected, and, having issued his Order-in-Council, to give notice as soon as possible to the House of Commons by laying on the Table of the House a copy of the Order. An Order will only remain effective for 28 days unless in the meantime it is approved by this House. There is provision for a longer period. If the House does not happen to be sitting, the 28 days can be extended until
the House meets again. The maximum duty being imposed under these Orders is at the rate of 100 per cent. ad valorem upon the imported article. The Act can remain in operation for 12 months only. The Bill itself is quite simple, but it is the Orders-in-Council which provoke our opposition, and it is because of the Minister's reticence in regard to Orders-in-Council and general information with reference to those Orders that I have some comments to make in moving the Amendment.
We have not yet been told by the Minister which articles are likely to Le taxed and which articles are not to be taxed immediately. We have been given hints by the Minister that there may be variations and that there may be an immediate selection of some articles and that others may have to wait until the appropriate season comes along. Indeed, the Minister can select any of the articles according to his fancy. He may have his prejudices and his predilections. He will probably have the good advice of the officers of his Department added to his own great knowledge of agriculture and of the import trades, but the Bill says nothing about the duration of an Order. Having chosen his articles, there is nothing in the Bill, and nothing has been told us, as to the length of time the Order is to apply to a particular article.
4.0 p.m.
The Act, it is true, only goes on for 12 months, but we have not been given any explicit assurance that orders which have been issued will operate for the whole of the 12 months, and we have not been told the rate of duty likely to be put upon any selected articles. We may find that there may be a varying rate of duty for the full period of 12 months or a full rate for a limited period less than 12 months. All these things are left in doubt. The Minister has not taken us into his confidence. We do not know what are his intentions, and we cannot discuss fully the merits of the Bill unless we know how the Measure is to be applied to the commodities mentioned in the list. We can see a good many dangers ahead, but if the Amendment which we propose is accepted, it will make it much more certain that the fullest consideration will be given to the conditions to which the Minister referred on the Second Reading. Without the existence of some scheme, all
kinds of complications, and, indeed, most incongruous results may be produced. We heard last night the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) refer to the importation of new potatoes from Algiers and from the Channel Islands. Potatoes from both places come into our market at the same time, the new potatoes from Algiers valued at only 3¼d. a lb., and the new potatoes from the Channel Islands at 10d. a lb. The Minister has not the power to impose a duty upon potatoes from the Channel Islands, although it would be very proper, in a Bill to prevent luxury imports, to put a tax on the most expensive luxury. In the Bill, however, there is provision for taxing only potatoes from Algiers, and not from the Channel Islands.

Mr. HANNON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that potatoes come in from Algiers and the Channel Islands at the same time, and are sold in our market at 3¼d. and 10d. a pound respectively?

Mr. GRENFELL: Yes, I can produce evidence from the records of the Board of Agriculture. I remember the figures being given very well, and there is no question that there are many of these apparently irreconcilable facts. But the hon. Member must know that, while the wholesale price of the imported potatoes from Algiers is 3¼d. a lb., the retail price may be very much higher, and if he wants to get an explanation why potatoes at 10d. and potatoes at 3d. a lb. are bought and sold at the same time in the home market, he may find that there is not so much difference in the retail price as at the time of arrival.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Algiers potatoes come in into this country at the end of March and the beginning of April, and the Channel Islands potatoes not till May?

Mr. GRENFELL: I will produce the figures before I sit down. I have not armed myself with all the details. They were given last night and not challenged then. I thought that I might give these figures, as they were not challenged by the Minister himself, although he was in the House at the time. The Minister has
the power, which probably he will utilise, of putting on, perhaps, 100 per cent. duty—I do not know his intentions—on the Algiers cheap potatoes, and make them twice as dear or more before they reach the retailers, and so prevent cheap potatoes from coming on to the market, while allowing the luxury potatoes to come in. All kinds of queer results will happen from the application of the Bill as it stands, but if the Amendment we propose be accepted, we shall avoid many of these complications.
The Amendment requires the Minister to be satisfied on two points only—that he shall not impose duties, unless he is satisfied that, as a result of those duties, there will be an increase in the home production, or that the importation is of a luxury character not in the public interest. We want the Minister, before issuing his Orders, before determining the scale of duties and the period for which the duties are to be imposed, to have consideration for those two points. With regard to increase in the home production, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), who spoke last night—and I listened to him with interest—gave us some figures. If there is one thing for which I criticise the Minister and those who support him it is the entire absence of figures and details. Here is a piece of legislation brought in for a special purpose, involving the future of the importation of these articles, the quantities coming in, their time of arrival and so forth. The Minister ignores all these details, and it is only from the speeches of some hon. Members that we have had any information to clarify the position.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft said that we are employing at the present time 18,000 people in commercial glass houses, and that they produce an output of the annual value of £5,000,000. If you take the ordinary rate of wages paid to men in this class of labour, it will be found that approximately one-third of the value of the product is paid in wages. Taking 18,000 people at a wage of £100 a year each, the figure is 35 per cent. of the total. It is a small proportion of the value of this class of production that goes in wages at the present time. Then there are the rents and the ground rents—[An HON. MEMBER: "And coal"]—I will say something about coal, too.
Suppose the Minister does exercise his power, and puts an average of 50 per cent. duties on tomatoes and other horticultural products that come into competition here, and he thereby raises that £5,000,000 to £7,500,000 at the least, what proportion is to go in additional wages to the men in that industry? What advantage is there to be to the men employed in the industry? Is it not clear that unless there is some safeguard, there is the possibility of a considerable increase in profits?
We know well enough that this kind of commercial glass-house cannot be improvised. You cannot by a duty secure an increase of production under five years or more, and in the meantime, there is an increase of 50 per cent. in the price of the article, which will benefit exclusively those who sell the produce, without giving the country one iota of benefit. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind. When there is no possibility of increase in home production, the duty should not be put on until he is assured that the industry is prepared to take advantage of the increase of price. We all hope that the increase of price will be very small, because the additional money will have to be found by the consumers in this country, the consumers who, in the main, are the poorer class of people, who are already having a very difficult time.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft to a statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. One is almost afraid to quote these figures, because someone who was not present during the Debate last night may challenge them. But my hon. Friend was quoted by the hon. Member for Lowestoft as saying that in 1929 we grew at home 240,000 cwts. of strawberries, and in the same year we imported 200,000 cwts. The importation in that year was 5/11ths of the total. Next year, for a reason not given by the Minister or any of his supporters, probably owing to a failing season—

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Of the 200,000 cwts. imported, can the hon. Member say how much came from the Channel Islands?

Mr. GRENFELL: I am speaking of the total quantity imported. In 1929, there was probably a short crop.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: I think the reference was to cherries—not strawberries.

Mr. GRENFELL: The figures, I think, referred to strawberries, but for this purpose cherries will do quite as well. The quantity imported was 200,000 cwts., and the home crop 240,000 cwts. The next year the home crop was 404,000 cwts., and in that year the imported cherries only ran to 60,000 cwts. The consumption in both those years was approximately the same, the difference being one of only 24,000 cwts. It was a reduction of just over 5 per cent. as between years when the home production varied from 240,000 cwts. to 404,000 cwts. Which of those two years would the right hon. Gentleman have in his mind when assessing the rate of duty to be put on cherries, for example? Would he put a duty on to prevent the 200,000 cwts. coming in, or would he put on a duty just large enough to prevent the 60,000 cwts. coming in, or a duty which might be so large as to stop the cherries coming in altogether, and find that when he has been successful in stopping the cherries coming in, he has left this country, in a season of short crop, with only just half the quantity of cherries that is normally consumed?
The Minister must really pay attention to that kind of thing. It is not enough to ask the House to give him power to issue orders when he thinks it desirable to do so, without keeping before himself and the House two main considerations, one of which is the increase in the home production, and the other the stopping of luxury articles from coming in—not stopping the cheap supplies of fruit and vegetables for those people who must have cheap supplies. From the two illustrations I have selected it will be seen that it is quite possible for the Minister to make a mistake, and to find that he has left the people at home with fruit either too expensive to buy, or with no fruit at all, because the duty has stopped all foreign importation. Plums come into the same category, and the same illustration can be used with regard to figures given in this House in these Debates. One is almost tired of talking about cabbages and tomatoes. Plums and cherries sound very much nicer, and one is glad to go from the vegetable world to the fruit world.
All sorts of abnormal results may accrue from the Minister's action, unless he has regard to the two considerations that I have mentioned. The importation of luxury articles is not in the public interest. I assume that the Minister wants to prevent certain articles from coining in because, in common with his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, he is anxious to preserve the balance of trade in this country. He is anxious to stop expenditure on unnecessary things. We cannot argue the general question of the balance of trade to-day. If our Amendment were accepted it would be possible for the Minister to issue his orders and to make a selection of articles, because there are certain commodities which, in accordance with our Amendment, it would not be in the public interest that they should be imported. We do not believe that this country should be made a depository for all sorts of dumped goods. We object to dumping in the real sense but not in the sense that is so often interpreted in this House by hon. Members opposite. We do not believe that vast quantities of goods should be brought in here from abroad if there is home production of the articles in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price. Our Amendment would imply that the Minister should have regard to the state of the market. Where it is not in the public interest to bring in unwanted goods we do not mind the Minister having power to issue orders prohibiting those goods from coming in.
On the general argument against food taxes, we maintain that it is necessary for the Minister to have the power which we offer in our Amendment. The Minister does not always decide what is the suitable occasion on which to take such action as is contemplated in the Bill. He is subject to all kinds of influences when he makes his choice. He is subject, like other Ministers, to pressure in the House and outside the House. We resent his action and that of his supporters in coming to the House and imposing food taxes under the guise of meeting emergency conditions which are supposed to prevail during the coming 12 months. That is the beginning of food taxation. Under the Bill the Minister may find it
desirable to impose the maximum duty on all the articles mentioned in the Schedule. Among his supporters there will be found some person, or some group of persons, or some representatives of vested interests who will go over the list of articles, one by one, and make out a case for the highest duty on each article, and the Minister will be forced by the sheer weight of pressure 'behind him and by a certain amount of support—support which he might like to shake off and of which he would like to be independent—to put on the maximum scale of duty, unless he is able to say to the representatives of the vested interests, whether in this House or outside, that he is only empowered to issue orders on the two grounds laid down in our Amendment. If he accepts our Amendment we will strengthen his hand and help to give effect to the Bill as he explained it yesterday. We desire to protect the people of this country from the ramp which is taking place and which must end in a very high scale of taxation on the food of the people.

Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment, and, in doing so, I should like to draw attention to one or two statements that have been made by the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know what is the objective of the Minister and his supporters in seeking to put duties on a large number of articles of food, such as vegetables and fruit, and also on flowers. It has been stated that the object of the Government is not to provide revenue but to keep out of the country the commodities that are scheduled in the list. If that be their objective, our Amendment is fair and just. Our Amendment says that the Minister shall have power to apply the Act if he
is satisfied that production in the United Kingdom of fruit, vegetables, or flowers will be thereby increased, or that the importation of any such articles, being articles of luxury, is not in the public interest,
That is a fair Amendment and it ought to meet the desires of the promoters of the Bill. In the list there are certain articles in regard to which there is considerable difference of opinion. There are great differences of opinion as to what is a luxury article. No one has been bold enough to say that a turnip
or a tomato is a luxury or that certain other articles in the list are luxuries. There are articles scheduled in the list which are the daily common food of the working people. We are entitled to say that if the Government prohibit various vegetables that are imported into this country during times when there are no home grown vegetables to take their place, the only thing that can happen will be that the cost of living of the working people will be tremendously increased.
Many jokes have been made on the question of tomatoes, but I submit very seriously that on a large percentage of the tables of working people the tomato plays a very important part as an article of every day food. Can the Minister of Agriculture say that if a duty of 100 per cent. is to be put on these articles that there will be English grown tomatoes to take their place and that they could be sold at such a price that the working class could afford to purchase them? The Amendment gives the Minister all the power that he need desire. We have a right to know what articles will be scheduled and what amount of duty will be imposed.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. PRICE: Unless the Minister is satisfied that home-grown produce is available in abundance and at a reasonable price he ought not to raise any objection to an Amendment which gives him power to levy the duty when that objective has been achieved. There is no justification for putting duties on articles of common daily food unless the Minister can say that we have sufficient home-grown commodities to replace them at the same price. The wives of the working men, who have to purchase the food, ought to be assured that the duty that has been imposed has been in accordance with the Government's election addresses and that it will not increase the cost of living. The Amendment ought to satisfy not only the Minister but everyone interested in agriculture or horticulture. I hope the Amendment will be accepted; if not, I hope that those who are opposed to any increase in the cost of living will COMB into the Lobby to support us.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not for one moment consider the acceptance of the Amendment. If he did accept it, the Bill might as well be torn up. There are differences of opinion as to what articles of food the working-classes consume. I admit that the hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment have shown that they are opposed to the imposition of anything in the nature of food taxes. They appear to have overlooked the fact that it is little more than a month since the National Government were returned with sufficient powers to carry into effect any sort of Measures which they consider to be of advantage to the people of this country.

Mr. PRICE: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member, or any member of the party supporting the National Government, stated in his election address that he was in favour of the taxation of food?

4.30 p.m.

Sir F. HALL: I am not in a position to answer for anybody but myself, but I say this, that as far as my constituents were concerned I asked for full powers to do whatever was necessary to deal with the problem of unemployment. The memories of some hon. Members are very short. They forget the difficulties which we are facing and the fact that the amount of unemployment, although slightly reduced during the last few weeks, is still abnormal. The Government must carry out whatever measures they consider necessary to deal with that problem. We have been taunted with the fact that the importation of these articles is only a very small proportion of the total imports of the country. That may be so, but we must not overlook the fact that the countries from which they come are favoured with much better weather conditions and that these early importations have a very detrimental effect on the growers of these articles in this country. The list of articles it has been said, does not include this produce and that produce. Many other articles might have been mentioned and I am sorry the list is so small; I should like to have seen many other articles in the list. It is only by the protection of our industries that we can possibly hope to reduce the
amount of unemployment which unfortunately exists.
It has been said that many of the working classes will not be able to have some of these articles on their table. Many of the middle classes also are not in a position to spend money on what may be called luxury articles. If they are luxury articles and can be produced in this country by all means let us give a certain amount of protection to those engaged in the industry. Much of this produce is grown under glass, and surely a measure like this is going to give an impetus to the building and construction of glass-houses whilst there is also the increased transport which will be necessary in the case of increased production in these various industries. Have hon. Members of the Labour party studied the rate of wages paid in other countries in the production of the articles mentioned in the Schedule I It is well known that in the south of France and in Italy the wages paid to horticultural labourers and agricultural labourers are not comparable with the wages paid in this country. They are always telling us that they are advocates of increased wages for the working classes, but I could understand that attitude a little better if they paid some attention to the way in which this increase could be obtained. I suppose hon. Members of the Labour party are carrying out what they consider to be the duty of an Opposition. It is not a question as to whether it is advisable or inadvisable; they are going to oppose whatever measures are proposed simply because they are an Opposition. I have discussed these matters with some members of the Labour party and they have expressed an opinion which is quite common amongst the party, that it is time some measures were taken to protect the industries of this country.
I am glad that these proposals have been brought in. They are just a sample of what I hope will be a full dose in the near future. Practically all Members on the Government side of the House have been returned on the distinct understanding that they will take all steps necessary to improve the general position of the country. The first thing to do is to find labour for our own people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept
the Amendment; it would take away the kernel of the Measure altogether. It is a small Bill as it is, but in these days we have to be thankful for small mercies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will set to work after the Recess and inquire most carefully into many other articles which can be produced in this country and bring forward a Measure to look after the interests of this country. If he does I am sure that he will have the whole-hearted support of the great bulk of Members of the House.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): It would be well if I indicated to the Committee my view of the Amendment. I cannot accept it. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have tried to imply that the National Government were not given a free hand to deal with these problems. I think that is beyond all doubt, and, therefore, any suggestion that this Measure infringes any principle or rides across any pledge which we may have given to our constituents is beside the mark. I have here a statement made by an hon. Member in an agricultural constituency, in which he made it perfectly plain that as far as the farmers and market gardeners and smallholders were concerned—it is their interests we are considering to-day—he was prepared to support the National Government in a policy of prohibition or quotas or tariffs, or in any other way which would give the most effective help.
The Amendment, if I judge aright, is based upon the lines of the Abnormal Importations Act. That shows that there are many hon. Members who seem to think that you can treat industry and agriculture on exactly the same lines. It makes one rather despair of the outlook of some hon. Members on the agricultural problem when they believe that you can apply exactly the same principles to agriculture as you do to industry. In the case of the Abnormal Importations Act the Board of Trade have to satisfy themselves that commodities are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities before making an Order imposing duties under that Act. The test which the Board of Trade have to apply is a mathematical test. In the case we are now considering it is very far from being such a test. It is true that the Orders which I shall make will be
based upon statistics and returns, but, quite obviously, there are a great many other factors which must be taken into account. It is impossible at this stage for me to divulge or state in any way what I propose to do in the Order. If that were done one of the main objects of the Bill would be defeated.
It must be remembered that every Order the Minister of Agriculture makes will be submitted to the House. The Minister will have to defend the Order, and the House will be able to judge whether that defence is adequate or inadequate. On the occasions when any Order comes up for discussion the House will be Able to discuss the reasons why the Order should be made. Take the case of early potatoes. It is quite clear that some of these early potatoes are luxury articles, and so far as they are concerned hon. Members opposite have not the slightest desire to interfere, even if we put a duty upon them or shut them out altogether.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The question of early potatoes has been dealt with time after time, but would the Minister of Agriculture say to which new potatoes he refers when he says they are a luxury. Does he refer to Algerian potatoes, to Spanish potatoes, or to the potatoes from the Channel Islands?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The potatoes from the Channel Islands are not touched by this Measure. Of course the luxury potato comes from outside that area. The point is very clear. The object of these Orders is to encourage our own people to plant early potatoes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Channel Islands when he speaks of "our own people" We ought to be clear about it.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Channel Islands are part of the Empire, and I am dealing with this problem from that point of view.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. The words in the Bill are
The production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased.
That does not include the Channel Islands.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: If the great Dominions and other dependencies are not excepted why should the Channel Islands be?

Sir J. GILMOUR: After this controversy over my unfortunate body perhaps I may be allowed to develop my own argument. If I were completely tied down by the Amendment, I do not think it would be a workable proposition. Clearly, in dealing with a question like that of potatoes, there is the possibility of increasing the quantity of our early potatoes, but if it be demanded of the Minister that in no circumstances shall he make an Order unless he is at that period completely satisfied that there is going to be an increased production of these early potatoes over what exists at that moment, obviously the Minister could not make such a statement, or, if he made it, I should be very doubtful of his position. It is clear that we must have latitude in this matter. I admit that a great deal of what one would have to decide in issuing these Orders is bound to be a matter of opinion. The Minister's opinion would be based upon the best information which the Government Department could secure from the market at the time and from the records of the past, and this House could look as critically as it pleased at an Order when it was made. In all these matters we are dealing with a Measure which is to last for only a year. It is introduced as an emergency Measure. It is directed to encouraging the production in this country of some of these early vegetables, and to giving our own people an opportunity which they have a right to demand. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: I am greatly surprised at the speech of the Minister. I imagined that he would readily accept the Amendment, if he really had any faith in the statements of those who advocate tariffs in this country. As I understand them, the advocates of a tariff say that one of the results of putting on a protective duty is to increase home production. The charge that a tariff will increase prices and send up costs to the consumer has often been met by Protectionists with the reply, "But you forget that by putting on a tariff your industry at home will increase, your home market will increase,
your overhead charges will be less, your unit costs will be reduced, and there will be no increase in price." The Amendment merely applies to the Bill the test of the tariffists themselves. The Amendment says that before this duty is imposed it is necessary to be sure that there will be an increase in production. I thought that the Protectionist was always confident that a tariff would increase production, and as a result would keep more people in employment. Now the Minister refuses to apply his own principles. He shakes his head, but it is within the recollection of the House that he has said during this Debate that this Bill will increase production in this country, as far as the commodities included in the Bill are concerned. We ask him to be true to his own principles. Even the preamble of the Bill contains almost the very words of the Amendment. The Preamble says:
The production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased.
It is admitted, therefore, that production can be increased in the United Kingdom. We are seeking to put that into the Clause, and yet the Minister has not enough faith in his own tariff gospel to apply the very test which Protectionists have asked us over and over again to accept. We have been told that there is a crisis, a tremendous emergency in this country, that the country is toppling over the precipice, and yet yesterday and to-day we have had one of the sparsest attendances I have ever seen in the House. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and others charged us yesterday with not being sympathetic to agriculture. They told us that they were the party who had the interests of agriculture at heart. Yet yesterday we had a count and this afternoon we have had a count. It shows the cynicism of hon. Members when they cannot attend even in an emergency to discuss this great industry of agriculture. This is a fiddlers' Bill. If Rome is burning this House is fiddling at the moment. In a state of grave emergency we are dealing with carrots and turnips and asparagus. Could anything be more ridiculous?

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. GROVES: I have only one other point to make. One thing that strikes me in the Bill as important is that it marks a distinct change in the policy of this country as far as industry is concerned. I always thought that the way to prosperity was by expansion, by increased production. It has been our proud boast in the past that British industry has developed, that our markets have extended, that our production has increased, and that progress means increased production. Here are a Bill and a Clause which reverse the whole of that doctrine, and British agriculture in this instance, and British industry in general, are now being forced to accept a policy of restriction and of scarcity. The right hon. Gentleman stands for a policy of restriction and curtailment. "Less, scarcity, increased prices, more costly living for the workers and consumers"—that is the policy of the Bill and of the Clause—scarcity in order to save the agricultural industry. "Let us have less and less, and higher prices. Let us make the cost of living dear, let us have scarcity instead of abundance, dearness instead of cheapness"—that is the policy of the Bill. I say to the Minister and those who support him, "Oh, ye of little faith!" If they had the faith that the Bill would increase home production why do they not accept the Amendment? As a matter of fact they know that it will not increase home production. They are afraid of the results of their own policy. They are running away from their own principles. This is a tariff Government. I admit that it has the right to bring in tariffs if it so desires. I do not know about the Liberals.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that question on this Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: I want to ask the Minister again quite nicely and sympathetically to accept the Amendment. Let us have an exhibition of courage. Let us on this side feel that the Protectionists as a party and the Protectionist Minister of Agriculture are not afraid to have in black and white on the Statute Book that this Bill will increase home production, that it shall not become operative unless it does increase home production, that the Minister knows it will increase production and that unem-
ployment will become less, and that because there will be increased home production prices will not be raised. Let us see him here and now prepared to accept the whole of the principles of the tariffists, and to stand firmly by them, with flag flying, in support of the Protectionist policy of the Tory party.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has made a Second Reading speech into which I do not propose to follow him further than to say that the Bill is a good beginning in dealing with agriculture. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that he could not accept this Amendment. It seems highly desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should have as free a hand as possible particularly in the interests of providing employment. I intervene in order to say a word on behalf of the nurserymen in my constituency of Windsor and in the districts of Wycombe and Farnham. These nurseries already give a large amount of employment and by the judicious use of this Measure that employment might be greatly increased. When we come to deal with the Schedule, I hope it will be possible to get the Minister's assurance that the items mentioned therein will be interpreted as widely as possible. I should like to ask him in particular if he can extend the item of foliage so as to include such products as shrubs, ornamental trees and herbaceous and Alpine plants and fruit trees. If he could do so, it would greatly increase employment in the nurseries which I have mentioned. I feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the proper course in refusing to accept this Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not responded to the appeal which has been made to him. If he really believes in the terms of the Preamble he has no alternative but to accept the Amendment. It is perfectly obvious that despite the protestations of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) to the effect that the Bill is going to create a tremendous amount of employment in certain parts of the country, the right hon. Gentleman himself has no faith that it is going to provide any employ-
ment at all. The Preamble includes these words:
With a view to reducing the importation into the United Kingdom of certain classes of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and other horticultural products, the production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased.
Why should he include those words in the Preamble and then shy at the words of the Amendment which are practically the same? The explanation is perhaps to be found in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Preamble is a very nice and ingenious demonstration to the horticulturists of the country, but in the very first line of Clause 1 the Minister takes power to supersede the terms of that Preamble absolutely and entirely. Clause 1 provides:
If the Minister … considers that it is desirable to do so, he may … by order apply this Act.
He may or he may not. Apparently he can ignore the Preamble. Because of that fact the right hon. Gentleman ought not to hesitate to accept the Amendment. If he believes that certain articles are luxuries and ought to be kept out, we do not object. If on the other hand he feels that the imposition of duties on these articles will create more employment, then he ought not to object to the Amendment. It was obvious from the speech that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich had not been present during the earlier Debates on this Bill, or else that he had, unfortunately, failed to understand many of the arguments which were submitted. May I recall to him the intention and purpose of the Bill as explained by the Minister himself. The Minister says he wants to secure an improvement in our adverse balance of trade. Therefore he brings forward a Bill giving himself power to impose duties on certain imported fruits, vegetables, flowers and so forth. He proceeds to say, in effect, that imported potatoes from Algeria at 3¾d. a lb. are luxuries and that a duty must be imposed upon them which will make it impossible to import them in future. He is going to keep out Algerian potatoes at 3¾d. a lb. and Spanish potatoes at 3d. a lb. as luxuries, but he is going to continue to permit the importation of new potatoes from the Channel Islands at 10¼d. a lb.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the question of these potatoes is a matter which might be better discussed on the schedule.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I quite agree, but I think the point which I was about to make has some relevancy to the Amendment. We suggest in the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman ought to assure himself and the Committee that the Bill is going to create more employment. We say that the mere process of keeping out certain articles will not in itself create more employment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether new potatoes are to be grown in this country to be available in January, February or March and if so what amount of employment would be required to produce those potatoes. It is to be remembered that new potatoes constitute an important item in the Schedule. We want to be assured, if the Amendment is not accepted, that we are not going to keep out Algerian and Spanish potatoes at 3d. and increase the importation from the Channel Islands of potatoes at 10¼d. To do so will not help to secure a favourable balance of trade. It will be to encourage luxury imports instead of discouraging them and it is not calculated to create any more trade in this country.
The Minister will have power under the Bill to prohibit importation or to impose duties up to 100 per cent. in the case of tomatoes. Is the mere process of doing so going to find employment in this country? If he thinks so, why does he not accept the Amendment? We had an experience last year which ought to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. The available supplies of strawberries were then about 50 per cent. of the normal quantity. Surely if the Minister thinks that the Bill is going to have any effect in providing more employment in the production of strawberries, he ought to accept the Amendment. But we are obliged to conclude that as regards luxuries, only the 3¾d. potato is a luxury while the 10¼d. potato is a necessity and that tomatoes imported between January and April at 4d. to 5d. a pound are also to be regarded as luxuries.
The Preamble to the Bill ought to indicate the intention of the Government. Having given the Minister the powers which he seeks, we ought to have a defi-
nite guarantee from him either that more employment will be found in this country, or that he will not impose duties, such as would increase the cost of living, on any of the articles of necessity embodied in the Schedule. We would have more confidence in the result of the Bill if the Minister would see the wisdom of accepting our Amendment. The Bill may find more work in the Channel Islands, but it will not find any more work here. It may help to enrich a few people in the Channel Islands, but it will not help the financial position of this country and in the absence of the words proposed by the Amendment we have no confidence in these proposals.

Sir B. FALLE: I should like to correct one or two statements made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), doubtless in all good faith, but in which he is mistaken. He referred to potatoes from the Norman Islands at 100 a pound. As a matter of fact, such potatoes are not imported in any considerable quantity, but are sent here by parcels post. They are grown under glass and there is no earthly reason why they should not be grown under glass in this country in the same way and if they were grown in the same way in this country, it would give more employment here. I can assure the hon. Member from personal knowledge that such is the case. The same remark applies to tomatoes. All the early tomatoes which come to this country from the Norman Islands are grown under glass and there again, no earthly reason exists why they should not be grown under glass in this country. That would also give more employment here. If there is increased production here, market gardeners must employ labour. It seems to me that a large part of the hon. Member's argument relating to potatoes and tomatoes and such like, which come here from the Norman Islands is based on a mistaken view—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member does not object to the figures recorded in the Minister's own departmental document. Should any of the figures in the return relative to any of these articles be wrong, we accept no responsibility for them. We only state them as we find them here.

Sir B. FALLE: I wish to point out to the hon. Member the fact that in regard to the potatoes to which he has referred as corning from the Norman Islands, it is not a question of tons. As I say they are sent here by parcels post in a form which is a speciality of the Islands. They are sent by those growers whose farms never exceed 25 acres who have the wisdom to grow them under glass and there is nothing to prevent them being grown in the same way on this side. The bulk of outdoor grown potatoes do not fetch 1½d. per pound. As regards the price of 10¼d. a pound, it is absurd to suggest that any Considerable quantity of potatoes is imported at that price. In no case is as much as half a ton of potatoes in one lot sold at that price. Why, if it were found that potatoes could be grown under glass in this country to be sold at £100 a ton, the gold mines of Johannesburg would not be in it with such an enterprise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures he gave must have been for pounds, not tons and they only affect the small grower, who never owns more than 20 acres of land in the Islands, and whose produce is grown, as I say, under glass.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I want to thank the Minister for resisting this Amendment. The Opposition always try to block anything that savours of industrial progress. In any matter of Protection, they always demand some sort of safeguards; even though they have in front of them the ridiculous failure of their own Free Trade policy. I am particularly sorry to find that one of the

Yorkshire Members in the Labour party has taken such an active part in opposing this Measure. The farmers in his constituency expect him to look after them, not to oppose them, and I am very glad indeed that the Minister has told them plainly that the Government will not tolerate any nonsense of this sort. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can definitely give us a proper definition of when a potato is new and when it is old.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister later on.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I hope the Minister, in resisting the Amendment, is also going to use the utmost vigour in prosecuting this Measure in every possible way, that the powers which he is taking will be used in a very strong way, and that we shall find immediate results. Our potato growers, particularly in Yorkshire, do not want to find themselves subject, as they were two years ago, to having to store their potatoes and then finding that they could not even get the amount of money required to cart them to the station. That was the ridiculous position in which the past Government, with their Free Trade tenets, placed our farmers, and now that we are going to remedy the situation, I hope the Opposition will alter their view when they see the beneficial results of this Measure.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 37.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[5.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Browne, Captain A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Buchan, John


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burghley, Lord


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'K'nh'd, W)
Bernays, Robert
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burnett, John George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Butler, Richard Austen


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Apsley, Lord
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Aske, Sir William Robert
Bossom, A. C.
Carver, Major William H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boulton, W. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bowater, Col. Sir T, Vansittart
Castle Stewart, Earl


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. SirJ. A.(Birm.,W)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Chotzner, Alfred James
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Patrick, Colin M.


Christie, James Archibald
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pearson, William G.


Clarke, Frank
Hepworth, Joseph
Peat, Charles U.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Penny, Sir George


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Petherick, M.


Colville, Major David John
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cook, Thomas A.
Horobin, Ian M.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Potter, John


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Power, Sir John Cecil


Craven-Ellis, William
Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(M'tr'se)
Purbrick, R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A, W, H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cross, R. H.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crossley, A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsbotham, Herswald


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colenel Bernard
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsden, E.


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Davison, Sir William Henry
Kimball, Lawrence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Denville, Alfred
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.


Dickie, John P.
Knebworth, Viscount
Rentoul Sir Gervals S,


Donner, P. W,
Knight, Holford
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Doran, Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Drewe, Cedric
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodoridge)


Duqgan, Hubert John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rothschild, James L. de


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leckie, J. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dunnlass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Eady, George H.
Lees-Jones, John
Runne, Norah Cecil


Eden, Robert Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ednam, Viscount
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salt, Edward W.


Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. O.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mabane, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Fermoy, Lord
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, J. H. F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Flanagan, W. H.
McKeag, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Major Alan
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Cornll N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Marjoribanks, Edward
Smithers, Waldron


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Glosson, C. W. H.
Millar, James Duncan
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mills, Sir Frederick
Soper, Richard


Golf, Sir Park
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'damp; Chisw'k)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitcheson, G. G.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Graves, Marjorie
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, Robert H.
Stones, James


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, William Shephard
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & ZetI'nd)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick
Summersby, Charles H.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hertland, George A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Normand, Willrld Guild
Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nunn, William
Thompson, Luke


Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ormlston, Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Train, John




Turton, Robert Hugh
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersley, Walter James


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Weymouth, Viscount
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
White, Henry Graham
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Willrid D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wise, Alfred R.
Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.H., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hen. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is there any Rule of the House that precludes a Member from giving a vote in the Opposition Lobby when Members are going through the Government Lobby?

5.30 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that I can explain to the hors. Member what happened to him. The operation of voting consists of two parts, one, getting into the Lobby, and the other, getting out of the Lobby. The hon. Member, I think, failed in the first part. The difficulty for Government supporters is getting in. Getting out is easy enough.

Mr. JONES: That is all very nice and fine, but is there not some time allowed, in the case of a huge majority, for the other Members of the House to give their votes?

The CHAIRMAN: The Rules of the House provide for the doors of the Lobbies being locked after a certain time. I understand that there is more than the usual accommodation in the Lobby which the lion. Member uses.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the. Clause stand part of the Bill."

Viscount WOLMER: I wish to raise a point on this Clause, because it seems to be the only point in the Bill where it can be raised. It is a point of some importance. In Clause 1, Sub-section (2), and subsequent Sub-sections, it is provided that when the Minister makes an Order it requires the assent of this House but not of the other House. It is laid down in Sub-section (3) that
an order so made may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner subject to the like provisions.
I take that to mean that if the Minister wishes to amend the Order in any respect, he has to bring it again to this House, and on the decision of this House rests whether the Order shall be amended or revoked. I take it that it is the view of the Government that this is a money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, and that therefore the other House has no right to be consulted in regard to Orders made under it. I understand that Mr. Speaker has given a certificate in the case of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act that it is a money Bill, and it is to be presumed that he will give a certificate in the case of this Bill also. That being the case, I do not wish to complain on a technical score about the procedure which the Government have adopted in this Bill. In so much as it is only a temporary Measure which is to expire in a year's time, I have no complaint of substance to make in regard to this point. We on this side of the Committee, however, hope very much that before this Session is over we shall have a permanent Act dealing with importations of agricultural produce and embodying the Government's agricultural policy, or a very large part of it. If that be the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will so draft that Bill that any Orders made under it will he subject to review in another place as well as in this House.
I urge that for this reason. Although this Bill may be technically a money Bill, it goes very much beyond what Parlia-
ment meant when it defined a Money Bill in the Parliament Act. A money Bill as there defined is primarily a Bill to raise taxes. The primary object of this Bill is not to raise taxes, but to give protection to certain classes of British agriculture. Therefore, it raises great questions of policy in which the other House has as much right to be consulted as this House. There is the further point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will appreciate, that, if his agricultural policy is to be successful, one of the most necessary conditions is that there shall be a quality of permanence and of security about it. I remember that when my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced about 18 months ago his acceptance of the policy of the guaranteed price for wheat, he laid special emphasis on the necessity of getting that policy in a form which would be permanent and not subject to sudden reversals like the Corn Production Act. If the agricultural policy of the Government can be reversed by a vote merely of this House, you are sacrificing one of the great elements of security and permanence which our Constitution still provides.
Therefore, I have risen at this point to express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture will not regard this provision in Clause 1 as a precedent for any further Bill that may take the place of this Bill when it expires. It is absolutely essential for the success of any agricultural policy that the farmers should feel that they have security in regard to its provisions. It is the object of my right hon. Friend and of his supporters here to get increased agricultural production in this country. That necessitates the employment of further capital, and, in regard to the Bill which we are now considering, for instance, the building of more glasshouses. I hope that a great deal of fresh capital will come into the industry as a result of the Bill and give employment in other trades as well as in agriculture. But that result cannot possibly be achieved unless those who are considering embarking their capital have some security that the policy on which this Bill is based will not be reversed in five years time by a vote of what may be a transient majority in this House, such as we had in the last Parliament. There-
fore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of this, because I am sure that it is a point to which the National Farmers Union and farmers generally will attach the greatest importance. We are not yet living under single chamber Government, and I hope that this Clause will not set any unfortunate precedent in that respect.

Mr. HARRIS: I quite agree with the Noble Lord and I hope, from another point of view, that the Minister will not regard the Bill as a precedent, for I think that it is a thoroughly bad precedent. I also agree with the Noble Lord that it goes far beyond the Parliament Act, for the framers of that Act never thought that a Minister would be given power to levy taxes by an Act of Parliament. I have great faith in the benevolence and sound constitutional position of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and, if we are to have taxes imposed by the Minister of Agriculture, he is as safe a man with his Scottish caution as we could have. The suggestion now, however, is that the House of Lords is to butt in and have a share in this taxing. The purpose of this Bill is to levy taxes at the Customs House or by giving monopolies to or opportunities for farmers to raise prices by eliminating competition. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is impossible at this stage to divulge what he intends to do as it would prevent what he wishes to carry out. The Committee will agree that we have in the right hon. Gentleman the personification of modesty, a man of probity and a man whom we can trust, and I am going to ask him a simple question. Has he any idea of the rate of tax which he intends to levy under these powers? That is a very reasonable question. We know that the President of the Board of Trade fixed his tax at 60 per cent. He had very good reason for not telling the House what he intended to do, because the object of his Bill was to prevent forestalling. This Bill is not intended to prevent that. It deals with perishable articles, and it is quite impossible in the case of cherries, cabbages, or broccoli or whatever is to be taxed to forestall. The right hon. Gentleman must have some idea of the sort of tax he is going to impose. Is he going to vary it according to the country from which the articles come, or according to
the articles to be taxed? On what principle is he going to levy his tax? We are entitled to know that before we depart from this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that arises on Clause 1.

Mr. HARRIS: Clause 1 provides that these Orders shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 28 days, and I assume that the farming community will want some guidance as early as possible as to how the taxes will be levied and how they are to be announced, so that they can get ready to produce the crops that hitherto were imported. For instance, tomatoes require glass-houses to be constructed—

The CHAIRMAN: These points should be raised on the Schedule, and not on Clause 1.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not want to discuss the articles but to raise the simple point as to how the taxes are to be announced, when, what amount, and how much notice the importers are to receive on the one hand, and, what is more important, how much notice the producers are to receive on the other band. Agriculturists will have to make up leeway for the shortage of supplies which will be consequent on the levying of the tax, and they must have reasonable warning. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot provide glass-houses or provide for new crops without many months' notice. This Bill is for only 12 months; it provides for emergency Customs duties; and, if it is to be effective in its working to help agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman should not wait for the Recess, but immediately announce the rate of taxes, how they are to be imposed and when they are to be imposed, so that the farming community can get to work to produce the necessary crops, and so that the supply should be available. I understand that currant bushes have to be planted—well, I am, not sure whether it is not too late to plant them now. The Noble Lord, who is an expert in agriculture, will tell us whether it is too late. In the small garden plot which I have we put in our currant bushes in the autumn. [Interruption.] I am told that now is the time.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has already made this speech, but he ought to have done so on Second Reading.

Mr. HARRIS: I am only pressing the Minister with regard to the word "now"—the time. I wish the Minister to announce his taxes at once, before we part with this Clause. If he will do that he will be helping agriculture, helping to protect consumers, and helping his Bill to work.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would say, in reply to the Noble Lord, that the procedure which is being followed in this case is exactly the same procedure as was applied by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in connection with an earlier Measure, and I believe it is correct to say that this will be a Money Bill. I am, of course, very sensible of the fact that in another place there are many Noble Lords who are intimately connected with agriculture, whose interest in the matter is considerable, but under our procedure we must carry out the steps in the way we are carrying them out. With regard to what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said, I shall divulge these Orders as soon as I have the authority of Parliament to do so. He has invited me to do something which is quite contrary to Parliamentary usage. I cannot promise to make the announcement before this House rises, because probably the Measure will not receive Parliamentary authority until the last moment.

Mr. HARRIS: Cannot you give us a hint?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. A hint is often not entirely correct, and, in my view, it would be unwise to say anything.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman rebuking the Noble Lord. I have always thought the Noble Lord had never read the whole of this Measure, otherwise he would not have put to the Minister the question which he did. If he will turn to page 4, he will find it stated quite clearly that the Measure is to continue in force for 12 months, and no longer. He assumes that this Government is a stable Government, that it has a great deal of per-
manency about it. I am very pleased for once in a while to see that the Liberal party in the person of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) are waking up to the realities of the situation. In Clause 1 the right hon. Gentleman is taking the powers that are necessary for administering this Bill. Last evening he let drop one or two statements which are very important in connection with this Clause. Before we pass the Clause, we are entitled to know from him what he meant by those statements. He said:
I have discussed with them, in a perfectly amicable frame of mind and with, I hope, mutual advantage, seine of the aspects of these problems, the problem of the tomatoes we get from the Canary Islands, or the early potatoes we get from Spain, or the other goods which come from Holland, Belgium or France."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December. 1931; col. 1638, Vol. 260.]
We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what progress he has made with representatives of foreign countries who came here, presumably, on account of this Bill being before us. There is another point which I do not think I can raise in a general way except on Clause 1. At the period of the year when this country is not producing commodities available for consumption is it intended to impose a duty on similar commodities from foreign countries at that time?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. He should have raised this point on Second Reading.

Mr. DAVIES: I bow to your Ruling, but I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman introduced these points into his speech last evening, and I thought this would be the only opportunity I should have of dealing with them, because Clause 1 is intended primarily as the governing Clause of the Bill. One thing the Committee ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman is whether he hopes to increase the horticultural products of this country by the imposition of these duties. When the Noble Lord told us this afternoon that another place ought to have a determining voice on this issue, I was very pleased indeed to hear the democratic sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am also pleased to see for once in a way two prominent Liberal Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have been pointing out all along that we
have not had a fair representation of the Government in the conduct of this Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, at any rate, what progress he has made in the negotiations he has had with foreign countries with regard to these duties?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow that question to be gone into here. Even though this is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill, the hon. Member cannot be allowed to make a Second Reading speech.

Mr. COVE: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this Clause in a very inadequate manner. He confined himself to generalities. An hon. Member opposite seemed to be missing the whole point of the Clause when he was pleading for democracy. It is too late in the day to plead for democracy. This Clause establishes a dictatorship in the Ministry of Agriculture, and I can see the right hon. Gentleman enjoying himself in the role of farmer dictator, especially during the festive season which we are about, I hope, to enjoy. As he is going to be a dictator, I do not expect him to give us details, to say whether he will impose a duty of 50 per cent. or 80 per cent., but we have not had from him any general indication of the principles upon which he will act. There is a phrase in the Bill which empowers him to impose these duties as he may think "desirable." As far as I can see, he can impose duties on whatever things he wishes, and the amount of the duty may depend on how he is feeling when he gets up in the morning. If he is in a happy frame of mind he will let the consumers off lightly, but if he rises in A bad frame of mind the consumers will "get it in the neck." High duties when he gets up bad tempered, and low duties when he is in a nice mood.
We are giving very wide and dangerous powers to the Minister, and genial though the right hon. Gentleman may be, and is, we ought not to part with this Clause without some definite indication as to the principles upon which he will act. I do not think any Member of the Committee has the slightest idea whether the Minister will base his action on statistics as to production in foreign countries, or upon the statistics of production in this country, upon the statistics of pre-
vious years or upon what. We are left in a complete fog, and out of courtesy the right hon. Gentleman ought to let us know what is in his mind. We ought to press him to tell us exactly what is behind the word "desirable." If he does so, I am sure it will help us to come to a more reasonable decision when we go into the Lobby. I repeat that I do not expect him to take the Committee completely into his confidence. I should not expect a dictator to do that, because it would be alien to the spirit and methods of a dictatorship to take a democratic assembly into confidence on minute details, but we may as well keep up the semblance of being a democracy. We have been elected, and I presume that the supporters of the National Government regard themselves as part of the democracy. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to let us know the general principles upon which he will act in applying this Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I very respectfully raise with you, Sir Dennis, the point which you decided against my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)? Sub-section (1) of this Clause says that the Minister, if he considers it desirable so to do,
may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, by order apply this Act to any article of any of the descriptions set out in the Schedule to this Act.
My hon. Friend wanted to know from the Minister how he would decide what was desirable, and I understood you to rule that that could not be raised on the Clause. I respectfully suggest that we are entitled to discuss the Clause, and to ask the Minister to explain it to us. I would like to have your Ruling.

The CHAIRMAN: I have no recollection of giving quite such a Ruling as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but when it came to a question of arguments in favour of or against making an Order applying to certain articles then I said, and I still say, that the time to raise that is on the Schedule, where the particular articles are set out.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understood you—or I may have misunderstood you—to say that the point raised by my hon. Friend was not in order. He was asking how the Minister would decide when it was desirable to make an Order. Will it be
when he has convinced himself that there is enough of a certain article in a country, or that there is too much of it in the country On what basis will he decide whether a thing is desirable or not? I understood you to rule that that could be discussed only on Second Reading.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The hon. Member was referring to other matters. The point which the right hon. Gentleman is now raising is quite in order.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us the basis on which he thinks it is desirable to make an Order? Will it be the price at which the articles will be sold? I think it is important that we should know what the right hon. Gentleman considers is desirable and what is undesirable, and before we part with this Clause we ought to have an answer to that question. I do not want to argue this point at any length, but I would like an answer to the question as to what is the basis upon which the Minister is going to determine that an Order is necessary?

Mr. COVE: We ought to be clear as to the general intention of the Minister. We ought to be told when an Order is desirable and when it is undesirable.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can understand the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to draw me upon this subject. I fully explained all these points on the Second Reading when I stated fully the intention of the Government in dealing with this problem. The administration and the issuing of an Order must be determined by the responsible Minister, after the fullest consideration of every kind of representations made to him. Of course, f cannot go into details until I have determined what the Order is to be, how it is to work, and for what period. It is a limited period in any case. I shall be prepared to give the fullest details when I bring an Order to this House, which I shall do on the first opportunity, as is provided for in the Measure, and that will provide an opportunity for the discussion of these points.

Mr. COVE: No.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The fact remains that I shall have the responsibility of issuing the Order, and I shall give a full explanation when I bring the Order before the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand what we are asking for. We want to be quite sure that the Minister will not consider the making of an Order unless he is convinced that there is an abundant supply of commodities at a reasonable price—I am referring to articles used largely by the working people. We want to be told by the Minister that that is the basis upon which he will decide whether to issue an Order or not. That is a very simple question, and it is one which should not be postponed. It is a matter of principle.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is impossible, at this stage, to go into the details as to what I shall do in regard to this or that particular commodity. I shall have to take into account not only the question of supplies, and the nature of the commodity, but whether it is a pure luxury or partly a luxury. It would be unfair to go into all those details now, and say what I shall do until I have had an opportunity of consulting with those concerned and of making up my mind.

Mr. MANDER: I want to know whether it is desirable that the administrative authority for issuing these Orders should rest with the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that a Measure of this kind is in charge of the Minister of Agriculture, but there are a good many interests which feel that it would be desirable to place the administration of this Measure in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, because there is a feeling that the Minister of Agriculture is too closely interested, and is too much under the influence of the Farmers' Union and bodies of producers of that kind. It is felt that the interests of the consumers are not likely to receive the same sympathetic consideration from the Minister as the producers. This point has been put to me by those representing industrial areas which are going to be affected by this Measure. I ask the Minister if he has considered this point, and whether he thinks it might not be possible to introduce an Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the point with which he is dealing has already been settled by the House is the Financial Resolution, and that point cannot be further discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Minister of Agriculture be good enough to tell the Committee, that before issuing these Orders he will consult the President of the Board of Trade, because that would give an assurance to the country that the point of view of the consumer as well as the interests of the producer would be considered?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not object to the Minister of Agriculture issuing these Orders on personal grounds, but I object on other grounds. I do not know that it would be a much better safeguard if the Minister did consult the President of the Board of Trade, who knows much more about shipping. The President of the Board of Trade is no longer a member of the Liberal party, and I do not know that we trust him any more than we trust the Minister of Agriculture. There is a good deal involved in the question which has been put to the Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I do not think there is much to choose between the two Ministers. Much as we dislike the policy of the President of the Board of Trade, and much as we detest all his political associations, we are prepared to accept him as the best Minister for dealing with such hopeless propositions as those which are raised in this Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for dealing with food prices which come under his supervision, and we want these orders to be considered from the point of view of the consumer. For this reason, I think it is advisable that the President of the Board of Trade, as the protector of food prices, should be consulted before any Order is made.

Mr. COVE: I could not allow this Debate to pass without commenting on the plight of the Liberal party—

The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 350; Noes, 39.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Copeland, Ida
Herbert, George (Rotherham)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hornby, Frank


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horobin, Ian M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cross, R. H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Curry, A. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Aske, Sir William Robert
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Atholl, Duchess of
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Denville, Alfred
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(Montr'se)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dickie, John P.
Iveagh, Countess of


Balniel, Lord
Donner, P. W.
James, Wing-Com, A. W. H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Doran, Edward
Jamieson, Douglas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Jennings, Roland


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Eady, George H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Eden, Robert Anthony
Ker, J. Campbell


Bernays, Robert
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kimball, Lawrence


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Blinded, James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Elmley, Viscount
Knight, Holford


Borodale, Viscount
Emmoll, Charles E. G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Law, Sir Alfred


Boyce, H. Leslie
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leckie, J. A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lees-Jones, John


Briscoe, Richard George
Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Levy, Thomas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Flanagan, W. H.
Lewis, Oswald


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Llewellin, Major John J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Burghley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mabane, William


Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Butler, Richard Austen
Goldie, Noel B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, J. H. F.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
McKeag, William


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Graves, Marjorie
McLean, Major Alan


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Carver, Major William H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Magnay, Thomas


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maitland, Adam


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hanbury, Cecil
Marjoribanks, Edward


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Blrm., W)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, Thomas B.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hartland, George A.
Merriman, Sr. F. Boyd


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edlnburgh, S.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Millar, James Duncan


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harvey, Majors. S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills, Sir Frederick


Chotzner, Alfred James
Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Christie, James Archibald
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison, William Shephard


Colfox, Major William Philip
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Colville, Major David John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Munro, Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
Hepworth, Joseph
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nunn, William
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)


O'Connor, Terence James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thompson, Luke


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Palmer, Francis Noel
Salt, Edward W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Patrick, Colin M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Pearson, William G.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Peat, Charles U.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Train, John


Penny, Sir George
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Petherick, M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston}
Scone, Lord
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Potter, John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Power, Sir John Cecil
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wayland, Sir William A.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Weymouth, Viscount


Ramsbotham, Herswald
Smithers, Waldron
White, Henry Graham


Ramsden, E.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rankin, Robert
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Soper, Richard
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rea, Walter Russell
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reed, Arthur c. (Exeter)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Remer, John R.
Stones, James
Womersley, Walter James


Rentoul Sir Gervals S.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Strauss, Edward A.
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff}


Robinson, John Roland
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Summersby, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskine.


Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grunoy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

CLAUSE 2.—(Charge of Customs duties on articles to which, this Act applies.)

Mr. ATTLEE: On a, point of Order. I should like to ask your Ruling, Sir Dennis, with regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—in page 2, line 36, after the word "the," to insert the word "average." I understand that you consider that that might increase the charge, and would, therefore, be out of Order, and I should like to submit one or two points to you. In the first place, I suggest that, in dealing with the strict rule against increasing the charge, one has to look rather closely at the precedents, because this method of taxation
is quite unprecedented. Formerly we have always been dealing with something quite definite—a definite tax of a definite amount or of a definite percentage, and a definite time. In this case we are giving power to put on a tax up to 100 per cent., and, therefore, there is not the same exactitude about the tax as we have been accustomed to.
My second point is that the Amendment would make an alteration in the method of valuation, and I submit that it is impossible to say that a change in the basis of valuation, from one year to the average of a number of years would necessarily increase the charge. It would depend on the facts in any case—facts which are not ascertained—whether it
would or would not increase the charge. It is an alteration of the method of valuation. If I might instance as a precedent an Amendment moved by yourself—though I do not know whether it is fair to quote to the gamekeeper an Amendment which he moved at the time when he was a poacher—I would remind you that you moved an Amendment to the Finance Bill last summer proposing that the Land Value Tax should be charged, not in respect of the year 1934, but in such financial year as Parliament might hereafter determine. You were yourself doubtful in regard to that Amendment, because you realised that it might be applied at a time when it increased the charge or at a time when it lowered the charge. In fact, you said:
I know that this is an alteration which could not be made except at the instance of the Government and that it would necessitate a further Financial Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931; col. 839, Vol. 253.]
You moved the Amendment in a particular form, because you wanted it discussed, and, although there was the possibility, under your Amendment as it stood, of a hypothetical increase in the charge if the tax were in respect of the year 1933 instead of 1934, your Amendment was allowed to be moved, because I imagine it was not contested that it dealt with the principle of the method of valuation. I submit that, if we are going to have a number of Bills of this kind coming forward, we shall be extremely hampered in discussing them if any Amendment dealing with the method of valuation is to be ruled out of order on the mere hypothesis that it might increase the charge. I submit that whether it will do so or not is not a matter that would be within your knowledge as Chairman, but that it depends on statistics, and, in many cases, on statistics which may not even be in existence. I submit, therefore, that we should be allowed to move this Amendment and to debate the question whether the valuation should be based on one year or on the average of a number of years.

Mr. COCKS: Further on that point of Order. I submit that this question, in addition, to depending, as my hon. Friend has argued, on statistics which are not ascertained, depends also on the intention of the Minister as to the amount of
the duty that he proposes to place upon these particular commodities. That duty may be anything from 1 per cent. to 100 per cent., and, if it is thought that the taking of an average would mean an addition to the taxation, the Minister himself might put on a lower duty, say 40 per cent. instead of 50 per cent, or whatever might be in his mind. We do not know what is in his mind. I submit that that fact should also be taken into consideration in dealing with this point.

The CHAIRMAN: I have given the point to which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has called attention very careful consideration, because I was really anxious, it possible to admit the Amendment as one which could be discussed. But I think that, if the hon. Member will follow my argument carefully, he will probably see that the question is not, as suggested by him, a mere question with regard to the valuation. Sub-section (2, c) of Clause 2 provides that the duties to be charged shall not exceed a certain percentage, and then it says that in the case of certain articles:
the value thereof for the purpose of the foregoing limitation"—
I call special attention to this word "limitation"—shall be taken as provided in the Bill. The Amendment now referred to proposes to alter the method of fixing the value in such a way as to alter a definite limitation which is in the Bill, and, therefore, if the limitation which is in the Bill be altered in such a way as to make that limitation, possibly, less effective or more elastic, or to allow of any possibility of a greater charge, the Amendment becomes, as I think the hon. Member will realise, one which could not be accepted. I have considered the particular arguments which the hon. Member has put, and I think that, after what I have just said, he will perhaps realise that this is not a mere case of a method of valuation, but is something quite different, which would alter the limitation.
6.30 p.m.
As regards the form of this Bill, and its not having the same exactitude as has been given in previous cases, I do not think that that applies to the particular argument with regard to this Amendment. I agree that the comparative novelty of the form of the Bill makes it the more necessary to consider very carefully any questions of this kind which
arise. The Amendment that the hon. Gentleman referred to as having been moved in the last Parliament by the then Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) is one which can be very easily distinguished from the Amendment now under consideration. I cannot charge my memory with all the points that he refers to in regard to that Amendment. I can only venture respectfully to suggest to him and his friends that the hon. Member for Watford in the last Parliament was apparently more successful when in Opposition in drafting his Amendment than the Opposition are on this occasion.

Mr. ATTLEE: The only part of your argument, Sir Dennis, that I cannot follow is that you assume that a change in the basis of valuation from an average of three years to one year is taking away a limitation. It may be making it even a greater limitation. It is a pure matter of assumption. Supposing the price this year was 25s. and the average for the last year was 23s. So far from imposing a charge, I should be making the limitation more effective. I suggest that the matter is really on all fours with the point to which I referred in your action on the Finance Bill, which was not challenged at all.

The CHAIRMAN: The argument, the correctness of which I must not be taken to admit that the effect of this Amendment might be further to restrict the tax or narrow the limitation carries no weight whatever. It is at least as likely, the hon. Gentleman will admit, that it may go the other way, and that is quite sufficient to take the Amendment, out of what can be in order. I am inclined to

think myself that one would be perhaps rather stretching a point—but I had intended to do so on this Amendment—if I thought it dealt simply and solely with the question of the machinery of valuation, but I am quite satisfied that on this occasion it does not do so. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that we are not now dealing with something uncertain, because we are dealing with a Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will only be operative for one year and, therefore, we know that we are dealing with a question of the difference between the price last year and the price in the last three years, and we are not dealing with the question of the price in the previous three years of any future years to come. In these circumstances, it is perfectly clear to my mind that we should be altering the limitation of the charge in such a way that that limitation might be widened in the future, and in those circumstances I have no option but to rule the Amendment out of order.

Mr. BUTLER: May I ask your guidance, Sir Dennis, about the first of the Amendments that we are discussing—the inclusion of the word "average." Would it not be possible to consider that small Amendment? Would not that arise in the question of the machinery of valuation? I raise it because I have received a special request to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is impossible. The whole point of this Amendment is raised by the word "average."

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 39.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[6.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Browne, Captain A. C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Buchan, John


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Burghley, Lord


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burnett, John George


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Butler, Richard Austen


Aske, Sir William Robert
Blindell, James
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bossom, A. C.
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Carver, Major William H.


Balniel, Lard
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Petherick, M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Christie, James Archibald
Hornby, Frank
Potter, John


Clarry, Reginald George
Horobin, Ian M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clayton, Dr. George C,
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colville, Major David John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Percy John


Cook, Thomas A.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Copeland, Ida
Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsbotham, Herswald


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. 31r R. (M'tr'se)
Hamsden, E.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jamieson, Douglas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jennings, Roland
Held, David D. (County Down)


Cross, R. H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Remer, John R.


Crossley, A, C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, John Roland


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross, Ronald D.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Denville, Alfred
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dickie, John P.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemou'h)


Donner, P. W.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Doran, Edward
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Drewe, Cedric
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Duckworth, George A. V.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Duggan, Hubert John
Leckie, J. A.
Salt, Edward W.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Eady, George H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Eden, Robert Anthony
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Elmley, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.


Essonhigh, Reginald Clare
Mabane, William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, J. H. F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Flanagan, W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Soper, Richard


Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
McLean, Major Alan
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stones, James


Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strauss, Edward A.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Goldie, Noel B.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Summersby, Charles H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Martin, Thomas B.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Millar, James Duncan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grimston, R. V.
Milne, John Sydney wardlaw-
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morgan, Robert H.
Thompson, Luke


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, William Shephard
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hartley, Dennis A.
Munro, Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Train, John


Hartland, George A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)
Nunn, William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hen. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Patrick, Colin M.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pearson, William G.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles u.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour




Wells, Sydney Richard
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Weymouth, Viscount
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


White, Henry Graham
Wise, Alfred R.



Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wills, Wilfrid D.
Womersley, Walter James
Mr. Russell Rea and Lord Erskine.


Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H, Kingsley



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mllner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Half, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Cordon Macdonald.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Basis of value in, case of articles to be charged to duty on value.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask a question of the Minister as regards the meaning of this Clause, in order that we may be clear about it? The Clause lays down the value of any imported articles which are to be charged to duty by reference to the value as fixed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. We do not quite appreciate how that works in with the provision in Clause 2 which says that the value shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. As far as we can appreciate the position, two persons cannot determine the same value. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain how the value is to be fixed in one way under Clause 3 (1) and in another under Clause 2 (2, c).

Mr. HARRIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Sub-section (2) of the Clause requires the production of books such as the Commissioners may require for a proper valuation of the article, and also the production of documents. I may be wrong, but this seems to be an unprecedented policy, introducing into our system of collecting taxes an inquisitorial method which is quite foreign to our country. I do not think that there is any case of taxes levied where the Customs House official goes down to a man's private office and examines books and papers in order to
arrive at the right figure. The general custom is for a declaration to be made by the person passing any particular article through the Customs on the basis of the invoice and on a statement by the importer. I do not think that there is any precedent for a Customs House official having the right to go into a counting-house to look at ledgers and other books in order to arrive at a value upon which a tax is to be levied. It is a new principle, rather Russian in spirit. It is the kind of thing one expects from Russia of officials going into warehouses, offices, banks and counting-houses and examining books. This Measure may be difficult to work and it may be considered necessary to make this new departure, but it requires some explanation. We want to know how far the Minister's officials are going to delve into the affairs of private people in their own offices.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understand the question, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me why the Commissioners of Customs and Excise should be mentioned and have certain powers under this Clause. I think that it is clear that this is an administrative action, and that they are the people who handle the goods and know the methods by which the Customs deal with the problems, and they will, in fact, work upon the Order which will have been issued and which will be their guide. They will, of course, eventually have to carry out the machinery. A good deal of the work which they are going to do is not, in fact, connected with a direct
ad valorem tax; some of it is by weight and some by measure. It will be their duty to deal with that side of the matter. This provision is identical with a similar Section in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act dealing with the precedent to which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) called attention.

Mr. HARRIS: There is a fundamental difference. The Abnormal Importations Act imposed an ad valorem duty on an ordinary Customs basis. These duties are to be levied at the discretion of the Minister, which is quite a different thing.

Sir J. GILMOUR: After all, we are taking no other powers in this Clause. The hon. Member talked about inspecting books and so on, but these powers, I understand, are exactly similar to those contained in the Abnormal Importations Act. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should add that Clause 3 refers to the ad valorem, duty, whereas Clause 2 (2) deals with duties not based upon value. This Clause is limited to an ad valorem duty.

Mr. JOHN JONES: I have heard a lot of talk about duties and the methods of collecting taxes. It is most extraordinary that some of the people who are advertising themselves as experts have not yet explained to us how they can make things better by taxing everything. I have heard this afternoon a good deal of talk about the taxation of various articles necessary for the people's consumption. The right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench has pointed out the legal difficulties in the situation. How are you going to collect the taxes? My question is, who is going to pay them? I am not an ex- pert, but simply one of the representatives of the common people, and I should like to know, when you have done all your collecting of taxes, who is going to foot the bill Poor old Phil Garlick, the man who always pays The right hon. Gentleman opposite, studying his Bill as best he can, with his Scottish logic and his English ignorance, is telling us now how we are going to get over it. The more we get over it, the more we get under it. There is trouble for us everywhere we go. I have been trying this week to study my Income Tax papers. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell
me what is going to happen to me after 1st January.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is hardly an imported horticultural article.

Mr. JONES: I am an importation from Ireland, but I am not a foreign product, I hope. Who is going to pay for the goods which come into this country? Who brings them in? I would like to ask hon. Members opposite and around me—we are surrounded by them; we are an island of Socialism surrounded by an ocean of Toryism—if they can tell us who brings those goods into the country? I live in the East End of London where the importers are great supporters of the National Government. They are always waving the Union Jack in front of the union jackasses. They are always telling us that the Empire must be saved by buying British goods, and then they go and buy foreign motor cars. Most of the motor cars in Palace Yard to day—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No question of motor cars arises under this Clause. It deals solely with the value of certain imported articles.

Mr. JONES: Thank you, Captain Bourne, for correcting me. Motor cars are not in question, but carrots are. If they are Spanish carrots, of course, they are different. People who do not want Spanish carrots do not buy them. Who buys them? Hon. Members opposite, because they want them in season—the season that suits them. Our carrots are generally dangled in front of our noses, as they were in the General Election. The people swallowed them, and now they have got the result of swallowing the carrots. Hon. Members opposite do not understand what carrots are; they know what 18 carat is. They do not understand the ordinary carrots which the common people are expected to consume. I ask the Committee to remember the fact that we have got here a collection, an accumulation of heterogenous units, units most of them, forming the Government, and they cannot govern. They were out to save the pound, and they lost the quid.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order; the question of the composition of the Government does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. JONES: No, Captain Bourne, I am sure that it does not. It could not arise on any Clause. The composition of this Government cannot be described by anything in the English language. It is a conglomeration of people who do not know where they are. Even their Prime Minister does not know where he is, because he is surrounded by people who do not believe in his principles, and he has surrounded himself by the inconclusiveness of his own conclusions. I do not care whether it is parsnips, turnips, carrots or savoys, you can tax everything everywhere, but you will never solve the economic problem of the working classes of this country by mere taxation. You can protect as much as you like, but the only people who want protecting are the workers who require protecting against the classes who have exploited them all through the centuries.

Clause 4 (Determination of disputes as to value) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Exception for transit articles.)

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 40 to 42.
The lines we wish to delete read:
Subject to compliance with such conditions as to the security for the re-exportation of the articles as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose.
We desire an explanation on this particular point. The Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the Bill yesterday, skipped over this Clause very lightly. He did not explain much about it. In fact, the only words he used were:
Clause 5 exempts from duty articles imported for re-exportation after transit or shipment."—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1541, Vol. 260.]
That was all he said in reference to this Clause, and I take it he expected some questions would arise during the Committee stage which would give him a further chance to state what the Clause means. We on these benches are not quite satisfied that it ought to be left in the hands of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, because we think the matter is much too important, and that the Minister himself should be the person to determine the articles that are
for re-exportation. We also wish to know the terms and conditions which will govern these particular items, because in the previous Act, the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, there is some difficulty at the present time. We wish to make sure that no similar difficulty arises in regard to this Measure. It is for those reasons that we are anxious that the Minister should give a fuller explanation of the position. and then, if he satisfies us, probably the Amendment may not be pressed to a Division.

7.0 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This Clause, as I think the hon. Gentleman realises, is identical with Section 5 of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act. As far as I know, all those who deal in any goods which are subject from time to time to Customs and Excise, and all those who operate transport or transshipment are fully aware of the circumstances and the methods employed. There is nothing new here, and the power is essential if the provisions in relation to transport and transhipment of goods are to be operated at all. It is quite clear that we cannot accept the Amendment suggested. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not a new method in dealing with these matters, that it is in actual operation at the present time and is well understood by those who come under it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that already vexatious and troublesome conditions have been imposed on traders under the Abnormal Importations Act. While the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was nothing new in the wording of this Clause, it is a new innovation to put an import duty on imported foods such as are mentioned in the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that if in the hard industrials import duties have been troublesome, with regard to vegetables and fresh fruit, unless the right hon. Gentleman takes every precaution to see that the work is made smooth and is facilitated rather than harassed, one can readily understand that disturbance is bound to take place where there is any re-exportation of any of these articles. All we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to make doubly
sure that the conditions when made will be such as to facilitate re-exportation rather than create trouble and disturbance in the trade. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us that everything that can be done will be done to make conditions decent and smooth, we shall not press this Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I give that assurance at once. It is not the desire either of myself or of those who will operate the machinery to cause unnecessary trouble, and I shall certainly see that everything possible is done.

Mr. TINKER: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 (Short title, construction and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 2 to 5.
I will endeavour to give the reasons as clearly as I can why the Labour party is attacking the Schedule point by point. We have been able to-day to draw from the Minister some information that we failed to get earlier. But there are one or two points still not clear, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what is likely to happen with regard to some of these fresh fruits. Take cherries, to commence with. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government is the old adage, "Buy your own cherries." That would have been all right if there were cherries to buy, but as there are no cherries to buy on occasions, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the Committee on a point particularly important to those persons who live in the North of England. I am assured that the whole crop of cherries is to be found in this country in the South of England only. The point put to me by persons who, I think, may rightly claim to know as much about it as the right hon. Gentleman himself, is this: If we are to prohibit all imports of cherries, and confine ourselves to the crop in the South of England only, there will not be sufficient cherries to supply more than the require-
ments of London and the surrounding parts, with the result,, I am assured on authority, that in effect the people of Lancashire and Yorkshire will never see a cherry again unless they pay a visit to London. That is taken by some hon. Gentlemen as very humorous, but it is really a very serious point.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this point made by some of the merchants in regard to cherries does not hold good? I have information about the home crop from one of the best books of statistics on agriculture that I have ever seen. Incidentally, this book is produced by a Tory organisation, otherwise the Central Chamber of Agriculture. It should not be a Tory organisation I know, but that is what it actually is. Liberal Members, I feel sure, will vote for my Amendment, especially after the speech made last night in another place giving them warning against the pace that the Government are travelling towards Protection. The whole home crop of cherries in 1929 was 296,000 cwts. The imports in 1929 were 143,000 cwts. The imports in 1930 had fallen to 60,000 cwts. I should imagine, at a rough guess, that all the cherries imported and growing in this land will hardly supply more than one cherry each for every member of the community. I have not gone into decimal points about it, but I want to press that point.
The day will come, in spite of the fact that we are a small number on this side of the House when the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to take notice of what we are saying even on an issue like this. But that day is not yet. It will come, though I am not sure that the onslaught on the Government will be from this side. It will be from among themselves. Disintegration is beginning to take place already among the Government, and some day they will fall like a pack of cards. Let me pass on to currants. This book, although a very remarkable booklet, does not give us anything at all about blackcurrants, the amount imported and the crop in our own land. There are figures which tell us what the home crop was in 1929. It is unfortunate they do not say the colour, because I am sure the colour weighs enormously with the right hon. Gentleman; if it were red it would be very revolutionary. The
home crop of currants in that year was 328,000 cwts., and the imports for the same year 141,000 cwts. I see that I was wrong in saying that the information I desired was not in the book. It is here, and I am very glad. Last night the right hon. Gentleman touched upon the canning industry. I was bred and born in a part of the world where they turn out tin-sheets and send them to America for the purpose of canning Californian fruit. A great deal of progress has been made since then and in Llanelly, South Wales, a good number of people are employed to produce these tin-sheets. The right hon. Gentleman, although he paid a little tribute to the canning industry and wants it to flourish, said he rather inclined to the view that that industry should confine itself entirely to the crops of our own country.
Let me put a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose it were possible by this Bill, which I very much doubt, to find work for 100 more persons in this country in the production of the commodities which he is going to prohibit, if he prohibits fruits which are used for canning purposes in this country, how many people in that industry will he put out of work? That does not require a great deal of arithmetic calculation. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman asked his Department to settle the point, or perhaps he might consult the President of the Board of Trade, or the Lord Privy Seal, who is an expert on decimal points. Let me put the point in another way, for the sake of clarity. Suppose the canning industry in this country use 100,000 cwts. of foreign fruit and that the right hon. Gentleman prohibits that foreign fruit from coming into the country, how many people in the canning industry will be thrown out of work and how many persons will be put into employment in horticulture by the same process?
Having dealt with cherries and currants, I come to gooseberries. Here, again, I am fortified by figures from the Tory book of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. If hon. Members are interested to know the personnel of the Committee of that body I would remind them that the chairman was the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr.
Amery), who, of course, knows all about gooseberries, tomatoes and the rest of it. He has appended his name to the document. I have taken a great deal of trouble to enlighten myself on this subject. In 1929, 15,000 cwts. of gooseberries were imported into this country, whereas the home crop was 645,000 cwts. In that respect we ought to pay tribute to the home growers for having beaten the foreigner, without any Protection. If that could be done generally by our industries the Empire would be safe, the pound would be safe, and the balance of trade would be settled immediately. Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman a question which has been put to him several times. He has been cute enough—I say that without meaning any offence—not to answer the question. Is it his intention when he knows that an article is not available in this country to prohibit the same kind of article coming from abroad by putting a duty up to 100 per cent. against it? Unless an article is produced in this country at a given moment, will he prohibit that article from being consumed in this country, by prohibiting its importation?
With regard to hothouse grapes, I confess that I am not much enamoured of the task to deal with the subject. The only time that I buy hothouse grapes is for the use of hospital patients, and I think that practice is common among most working people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember the very important fact that a goodly amount of grapes are bought for the purpose of taking them to hospitals and to sick people. While it may be said that the hothouse grape is a luxury, I do not think that anyone can say that the humble plum is a luxury. The mushroom, the turnip or the carrot may fall into another category, but you cannot call the plum a luxury, unless it be the political plum. There are, of course, political plums and there is a great deal of ambition in regard to that kind of plum, but so far as I can see no political plums are left at the moment for any Liberal or Tory back-bencher to receive. The home crop of plums in 1929 was 1,215,500 cwts. and the importation 505,000 cwts. I am particularly interested in this subject because I am connected with a trade union which has among its members the jam makers employed by the Co-operative Wholesale
Society. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not know about the Cooperative Wholesale Society, let me tell them that it is the largest importer of wheat in this country. I do not know whether it is the largest importer of fresh fruit. [HON. MEMBERS: Russia."] I would not be surprised if hon. Members eat some of the produce of Russia without knowing it, and acclaim it as good. Incidentally, some of our patriots are always crying out "Buy British!" That cry is not always genuine. We ought to alter the motto, and say: "Sell British."
With regard to plums, let me put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. If there are no plums available from our own crop and there is a glut of plums on the foreign market, are we right in assuming that for the purpose of protecting our own crop, say, in July, the right hon. Gentleman will prohibit plums coming from foreign lands for two or three months before July? Unless I mistake the object of the right hon. Gentleman, this is a prohibition Bill in respect of fruits that are regarded by him and his Department as luxury.
I have come across some strange illustrations of how the human mind works in regard to tariffs. I met a piano dealer who is very keen on preventing all manner of musical instruments from coming into this country, but in his own home the only piano that he owns is a German grand piano. Tariffs for everybody else, but not for him. He wants to prohibit foreign goods for everybody else, but not for himself. That is usually the attitude of tariffists. They break the rules whenever it suits them. [An HON MEMBER: "What about raspberries?"] Raspberries are not included in the Schedule. If they were included I should be glad to refer to them. Hon. Members opposite seem to assume that because we represent industrial constituencies we are ignorant of agriculture. If a census were taken, I could probably claim to have worked longer on the soil than any Member of the House. For over three years I was a farm labourer. You cannot get much nearer the soil than that. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is a farmer, but there is a vast difference between a gentleman farmer and a farm labourer.
7.30 p.m.
Let me deal with strawberries. The home crop in 1929 was 340,000 cwts. and the importation 80,000 cwts. Supposing there was a glut of strawberries in a given month on the Continent and no strawberries in this country in that month or the succeeding month, would the right hon. Gentleman prohibit the whole of the foreign strawberries in order to protect the home grower, say, two months hence? The crux of this matter is in the Schedule and my purpose is to delete fresh fruits, on the assumption that the two things that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do cannot be achieved. He proposes to put a prohibitive duty on these fruits in order to help the home grower, but in spite of the fact that there is in this House the largest number of Tories that has ever sat in the House of Commons he cannot alter the climatic conditions of this country. He cannot alter the course of the sun. He cannot say that France and Italy shall not grow grapes and other fruits six weeks earlier than we can grow them. Nature will still produce crops and fruits in abundance, but all we shall do by this Bill will be that they will rot along the Mediterranean coast in Italy and France simply because we in this country propose to save the pound by prohibiting their importation into this country. I feel proud when I go to the Continent that I am a Britisher. Some people consider that a Socialist cannot be a Britisher. I belong to a nationality which was here ages before the English came to these shores, and I have therefore a right to be proud of my country. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the two or three points I have put to him. In the first place, how much of the work of the canning industry will be destroyed if he prohibits some of the fruit now coming in which is being used by the industry; and, secondly, does he intend to preclude by these duties the importation of these fruits in one month in order to help the home growers in succeeding months? I have now put my points as clearly as I can and, having done so, I beg to move the Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the hon. Member thinks that I have failed to answer him on previous occasions, but
frankly I am a little disappointed with him. He draws a horrible picture of the effect of this Measure with regard to soft fruits, and says that we shall be able to go along the south coast of France and see these fruits rotting all along the Mediterranean coast. Does he give a moment's consideration to those unfortunate people in our own country whose products are rotting in the ground and on the trees? Let us come down to real business in this matter.

Mr. DAVIES: My point was that the fruit is grown in the south of France at a different period to that at which it is grown in this country.

Sir J. GILMOUR: That does not alter the fact that there is an influx into this country of fruit at an earlier time, which has the inevitable result of leaving the greater portion of the fruit in this country to rot on the trees. Is nothing to be done in a case like that? If that is the attitude of the hon. Member and his friends then I join issue with them. This Schedule is a very modest one. It has been designed to stimulate the production in this country of a good many articles which we can quite properly produce without any difficulty. Obviously, grapes stand in a class by themselves. We can produce all the grapes referred to in the Schedule—hothouse grapes—without difficulty, but at the present moment we are facing a considerable competition from the Continent in this direction. Not only can we produce the grapes but it would mean an increase in the building of glass-houses and an increase in the use of coal.
As regards the rest of the soft fruits, I have been asked whether I am satisfied that nothing I shall do will interfere unduly with the canning industry. I am as alive to the importance of the canning industry as any hon. Member, but it is quite clear that if the canning industry is to be successful the factory should be surrounded and be able to draw from the district around it fresh vegetables and fruits. With regard to the jam making industry, it is beyond dispute that it has made use of certain importations at a time which has been very detrimental to the quite as good if not better produce of this country, and which from every point
of view could quite properly be used. We desire that the cream shall not be taken off the market. A. great deal has been said about cherries and the risk of those living in the North not getting any of this fruit. We need not be over-anxious on that matter. It is quite clear that we shall get our share of cherries, but in that case, as well as in the case of plums, it is the importation of these early fruits, which are sold at a higher price than the home producer can command when he takes his produce into the market, which takes the cream off the market, and it is to deal with that side of the question that I am asking for the powers in this Measure.
Certain figures have been quoted in the case of strawberries. I see that the imports, especially of early strawberries, have risen from 15,000 cwts. in 1913 to 88,000 cwts. in the current year, and that the acreage of strawberries fell from 32,000 in the years 1920 to 1924 to 22,000 in 1929. There has been a slight rise in the last two years. The loss of employment as well as of production on that item alone is pretty serious, and we are justified in doing something which will stimulate the industry. I am asked whether I mean to shut out articles which are not produced in this country. If they are purely luxury articles, which under no circumstances are produced in this country, they are clearly articles which we can do without. For instance, plums are produced in this country. We propose to deal with the early importation.of plums. They take the cream off the market and leave our trees with the plums rotting upon them. That is not the way to assist the canning industry. I have listened to all the arguments on the question of soft fruits, and I am bound to say that I have heard none which moved me.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not want to delay the Committee in coming to a discussion of tomatoes which some hon. Members are anxious to raise, but it does seem to me that the Minister of Agriculture is entirely confusing the real issue. He speaks about strawberries and regrets the falling off in the crop. That has nothing whatever to do with the price. In fact, the price went up for the British crop during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 by over 200 per cent. above the pre-War price, and the reason why there has been a reduction in the quantity of straw-
berries grown in this country is because of the reduced purchasing power of the people, not because a fair price, and a good price, has not been obtained for the strawberries. The experience is that you never get crops rotting on the trees unless you get an internal glut. It is not because of importation that our crops rot on the trees. The experience of the last 50 years shows that when you get a big crop, say, of plums, people say that it is not worth while picking them because there are so many on the market, because of the internal production not because of imports. And there has been no available means for absorbing that surplus.
This year for the first time the canning industry has provided a means for absorbing the surplus of internal production, and it is by providing a means of stopping the internal market being flooded that the right hon. Gentleman is most likely to protect the growers of this country. If he will inquire he will find that in the present year the position as regards soft fruits in the district of Worcestershire is that there was a very heavy crop of strawberries, but, owing to the fact that the canning factories were able to take the surplus off the market, prices were maintained and fruit growers did very well. It had absolutely nothing to do with the question of importation; and that is why we think a Bill taxing these fruits is entirely the wrong way to assist the fruit growing industry. If the right hon. Gentleman would devote his energies to encouraging the growth of canning factories on a co-operative basis and provide a means whereby the growers of this country will not flood their own markets in a good season, he will do far more than by cutting out a few thousand cwts. of strawberries or gooseberries or anything else.
I want to draw his attention also to this feature of the problem. This is a Bill for a year only. It is to last no longer; and when he says that it is to encourage the production of these products in the United Kingdom, I should like to know whether it is because it is his opinion that the trees are going to bear more this year? He surely does not

think there is sufficient time for any one of these crops to come to fruition. In the case of cherries it takes five years, currants two to three years, gooseberries three years, grapes seven years, plums about five years and strawberries, which are the quickest, take two years before they come into bearing. How on earth can a Bill which is to last for only 12 months increase the production of crops which cannot possibly come to fruition for two years at the very least? I wish the Minister would let us have the information.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not going to reply to the questions of my hon. and learned Friend? The questions call for some reply. In the case of strawberries, cherries and gooseberries the right hon. Gentleman must know that supplementary supplies, if grown in this country, can only be made available in a period of years. If there should be a surplus next year the Minister might be justified in taking some steps, but we ought to be warned by the right hon. Gentleman as to what he is going to do. What does he intend to do to ensure that normal supplies of these various fruits will be available to the population? We know that between 1913 and 1931 the number of strawberry plants has been reduced. That was neither because of the imports of strawberries nor because the grower had not received a, reasonable price. During the last five years the average price has been 150 per cent. above the pre-War price. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is going to do if the 66,000 or 88,000 cwts. of imported strawberries are kept out next year? What is he going to do to ensure that a normal supply of the fruit will be available for consumption and for the canning industry? We have debated the matter for four days and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet given us the information.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 42.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Maj- J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.W)
Atholl, Duchess of


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atkinson, Cyril


Aichison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Albery, Irving James
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Aske, Sir William Robert
Balfour, George (Hempstead)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Marjoribanks, Edward


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bateman, A. L.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goldie, Noel B.
Millar, James Duncan


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morgan, Robert H.


Blindell, James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shephard


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hartland, George A.
Nunn, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
O'Connor, Terence James


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Browne, Captain A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.


Burghley, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, Charles U.


Burnett, John George
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)
Penny, Sir George


Butler, Richard Austen
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Petherick, M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pickering, Ernest H.


Carver, Major William H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hornby, Frank
Potter, John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horobin, Ian M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Horsbrugh, Florence
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pyhus, Percy John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)


Christle, James Archibald
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Percy A.
Rankin, Robert


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major William Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Colville, Major David John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cook, Thomas A.
Jamleson, Douglas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Jennings, Roland
Remer, John R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Johnstone, Harcourt (S, Shields)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Robinson, John Roland


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Curry, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kimball, Lawrence
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Denville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Dickle, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Donner, P. W.
Leckie, J. A.
Salt, Edward W.


Drewe, Cedric
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lees-Jones, John
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Duggan, Hubert John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Eady, George H.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Selley, Harry R.


Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Smithers, Waldron


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
McKeag, William
Soper, Richard


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stones, James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Alan
Strauss, Edward A.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Flanagan, W. H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Magnay, Thomas
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maitland, Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thompson, Luke




Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wolman, Rt. Hon Viscount


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Tryon, Ht. Hon. George Clement
Wells, Sydney Richard
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Turton, Robert Hugh
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
White, Henry Graham



Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Womersley.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 13.
8.0 p.m.
I regard this Amendment as one of the most important on the Paper. The essence of it is that all fresh vegetables mentioned in the Schedule should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I think that the National Government ought to be very thankful to the Opposition for putting down these Amendments. Had they not done so the Government would have been in considerable difficulty with all those people who are clamouring for one thing and another, and the Minister of Agriculture, particularly, might have been faced with a discussion on the wheat quota, concerning which I understand that he is involved in considerable difficulty with the millers and others at the moment. I understand that for the present we are only dealing with this list down as far as the words "Potatoes (New)" because it is desired to safeguard an Amendment to be moved later by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) when I understand we may have an opportunity of seeing the Liberal party demonstrate in force.
The principal reason why I move to exclude these vegetables is on the ground of health. However valuable fresh fruit may be, we are certainly advised by all competent medical authorities that there is very great value indeed in fresh vegetables. It is therefore difficult to
understand why the right hon. Gentleman should seek to include all the vegetables named in the Schedule many of which are absolute necessities to the people of this country. I am not altogether a vegetarian; In the last Parliament there were several Members, supporters of the then Government, who could have spoken on this subject with greater authority than I but I wish to go through this list and give some reasons why particular items should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I shall not deal at any length with asparagus, though I take exception to a good deal that has been said from the other side as to the working class not having the opportunity or not deserving to taste asparagus. I know of no reason why on occasion any man or woman should not have the opportunity of partaking of asparagus or of any other vegetable or fruit.
With regard to green beans, I am in some doubt. The Solicitor-General is in his place and perhaps he will indicate to the Committee what is included in this term. Unfortunately the Attorney-General is not with us though we gather from the newspapers that after the Christmas Recess it is hoped that he will be able to join our Debates as he did in the last Parliament. The Solicitor-General if asked for a definition of this term may take the opportunity of telling us that at the last Election he gave his opponents beans. I know that there are butter beans, kidney beans and French
beans, but I have not hitherto come across this expression "green beans." For broccoli we must all have a sympathetic affection and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council is not with us when this subject is under discussion. Only a year or two ago he prophesied a great future for that industry. I am afraid that it has been strangled since by high railway rates and other factors. We know that broccoli is exported to a large extent and the Minister ought to tell us why he has included it. As to cauliflowers we have already asked the right hon. Gentleman why he includes cauliflowers and not cabbages. He will no doubt take this opportunity of explaining with his usual care why cabbages have been overlooked.
I need not spend any time on the consideration of carrots and chicory, and I pass quickly to the subject of new potatoes. Throughout these Debates we have pressed for a definition of new potatoes. In this matter also the Solicitor-General may be of great assistance to us for we have not yet had any explanation of this term. I am informed by people in the trade that there are periods of the year when new potatoes can be bought at 1½d. and 2d. per lb. and at such times they are certainly not luxuries. Frequently they are the only potatoes which can be bought in a satisfactory condition—I refer to the imported new potatoes. I gather that there are occasions when a British potato crop is short and in the early spring unsaleable, for one reason or another. The hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell) is an authority on potatoes and during the discussions on the Agricultural Marketing Act he told us a great deal about the subject. I am sure the Committee would much appreciate his advice upon this matter and I hope he will intervene to assist us.
Then we have green peas, mushrooms, and lettuce. I submit that in the interests of the health of a great part of the population it is extremely desirable that the duty proposed by the right hon. Gentleman should not be placed upon any fresh vegetables. They are, as I have said, a necessity of life. They are at present very cheap. The right hon. Gentleman has not, so far, admitted it, but
perhaps he will now tell us whether he does not anticipate a definite rise in the price of all these vegetables if this duty is imposed. It would be a very serious matter indeed if the prices of such articles as potatoes or lettuce were increased by this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has evaded every specific question which we have put to him, or at any rate every question which he had the least difficulty in answering. I should like to repeat one question which I have already put to him. Has he consulted the trade in regard to these vegetables included in the Schedule? Further, why has he excluded onions? He did not answer that question. But I should particularly like to know if he has consulted the duly constituted associations in the trades concerned, because I am told that there are serious complaints against him in this connection.
If he will allow me to say so the right hon. Gentleman seems invariably to close the gate after the horse has gone. In connection with the wheat quota he did not consult the milling and other interests until after the announcement was made in Parliament. The millers have taken umbrage at him and we understand that they are now refusing to have any part or lot in working the quota. In his own interests the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult the various bodies connected with these trades because they can give him much valuable advice on this subject. I am not sure whether they would advocate with me that all these fresh vegetables are to be left out of the Schedule, but they will tell him of the increase in price which will be necessitated by these proposals. For the reasons I have given I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that Members of the Opposition have shown a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this problem of vegetables. They have complained about these proposals as being likely to affect what they choose to describe as the chief food of the masses of the people. I wish to make it clear that the Bill is directed to dealing with those articles of early importation which take the cream of the market in this country. I am sure that even hon. Members opposite will not pretend that early carrots and turnips from France and elsewhere are anything but luxuries. It
will not be argued that these form a part of the general food of the people. When we come to other items, such as asparagus, green beans, green peas, mushrooms and even those early salads especially cucumbers which come from Belgium and Holland, I do not think that any of us can honestly say that these are not articles which we can encourage our people to produce at home if we reduce the imports from abroad. They are articles which can be produced at home. One has to remember, in considering this problem, that the importation of miscellaneous vegetables has increased by about 100 per cent. in the last 10 years. That is a fact which we ought to take into account.

Major MILNER: Is not that due to increased population and increased consumption?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, all those factors have something to do with it, but the fact remains that many of our market gardeners and people who have in the past grown these vegetables and marketed them successfully have found it extremely difficult to do so. I am anxious by this method to stimulate the production of those articles which we can produce ourselves. I have been asked particularly about new potatoes. This is a matter which, admittedly, we shall have to deal with carefully, but, as an instance of what is going on, I only mention what happened in one year within recent memory, when we were importing new potatoes at something like £30 per ton in very considerable quantities, whereas we had in this country quite sound and good potatoes which were not able to find a market at all. That of itself, I believe, justifies something being done in that regard. It has been said that it is difficult to define a new potato. I believe that that term is easily understood, not only by the wholesale and retail trade, but also by the growers and the consumers, and I do not think there is any difficulty anticipated—certainly not by my advisers—upon this point.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee may expect me to give some very full definition on this subject, but I do not propose to enter into that. I am satisfied from
my association with agriculture that it can be very properly understood. I might have difficulty in defining an elephant, but I know one when I see it; and those who have to deal with this problem, will, I am sure, be able to find an easy solution. I have been asked whether I have consulted the trade associations. That can properly be done when I come to decide upon the definite action which I shall take in issuing the Orders, and I am quite prepared to enter into negotiations and hear the views of those who are concerned.

Major MILNER: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet done so?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is so. I have, of course, obtained certain information, but I have not officially seen these bodies. Before I issue the Orders, however, I shall be glad to confer with some of them. I believe I did mention that we have not included onions because of the size of the importations coming from abroad and the fact that we do not grow in this country a very material amount.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We are very happy to find that the Minister of Agriculture is beginning to appreciate the importance of many matters that we have placed before him. Last night we endeavoured to stress for a long time the importance of the canning industry, and now we are delighted to learn that the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to appreciate the importance of that industry. After realising the impression that we have made on his mind, I wonder whether we can get him to think of some other matters in this connection. The object of the Bill is to stimulate the growth of home products, and I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what his Department has been doing recently in preventing home products, particularly vegetables. I have in my hand some Regulations that have been issued by the Department during the last few weeks, which set out deliberately to prohibit the growth of vegetables in this country, and I am sure that if I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this point—I am sorry that he has left the Committee—he will take steps to see that some of these Regulations are withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that, if the right hon. Gentleman were here, I could not allow him to defend Regulations which have nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that the Amendment is to exclude vegetables from this Order and that the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate home-grown products. I put it to you, Sir Dennis, that if a Regulation recently issued by the Ministry of Agriculture prohibits homegrown products, the purpose of the Bill as a whole falls to the ground.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the purpose of the Bill. I said that I could not allow the Minister to defend Regulations which had nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: Slay I put it to you, Sir Dennis, that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to exclude vegetables from the Bill, and one of the reasons for their exclusion is the fact that there would not be enough in this country. I think he would be justified in showing that at

present there are hindrances in the way of producing the necessary supplies.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that up to that point the hon. Member would be right, but I purposely said in the first instance that I could not allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend Regulations which had nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member is justified in criticising up to a certain point the policy of the Department in regard to the production of vegetables.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am obliged to you for that Ruling, Sir Dennis. It seems to me to be patent that it is impossible for vegetables to be grown in this country, which, after all, is the object of the Bill, if these Regulations stand. I accept your Ruling, I have made my protest, and I shall leave it at that.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "Tomatoes" in line 11, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 42.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[8 23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Flanagan, W. H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fraser, Captain Ian


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Ganzoni, Sir John


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W]
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gledhill, Gilbert


Aske, Sir William Robert
Chotzner, Alfred James
Glossop, C. W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christle, James Archibald
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Atkinson, Cyril
Clarry, Reginald George
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Goldie, Noel B.


Balniel, Lord
Colville, Major David John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cook, Thomas A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Copeland, Ida
Granville, Edgar


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bateman, A. L.
Crossley, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Denville, Alfred
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Dickie, John P.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Donner, P. W.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Blindell, James
Drewe, Cedric
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Duggan, Hubert John
Hartland, George A.


Bossom, A. C.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eady, George H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Eastwood, John Francis
Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eden, Robert Anthony
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elmley, Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hepworth, Joseph


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Herbert, George (Rotherham)


Burghley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Burnett, John George
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Butler, Richard Austen
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hornby, Frank


Horobin, Ian M.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Horsbrugh, Florence
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Salt, Edward W.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Marjoribanks, Edward
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Scone, Lord


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Millar, James Duncan
Selley, Harry R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Morrison, William Shephard
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Jamieson, Douglas
Moss, Captain H. J.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Jennings, Roland
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Munro, Patrick
Smithers, Waldron


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nunn, William
Soper, Richard


Ker, J. Campbell
O'Connor, Terence James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stones, James


Kimball, Lawrence
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pearson, William G.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Petherick, M.
Thompson, Luke


Leckie, J. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lees-Jones, John
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leighton, Major B. E. p.
Potter, John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lewis, Oswald
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Llewellin, Major John J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pybus, Percy John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsden, E.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Rankin, Robert
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Weymouth, Viscount


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
White, Henry Graham


MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


McKie, John Hamilton
Remer, John R.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McLean, Major Alan
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Womersley, Walter James


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Major M, Mckenzie (Banff)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Magnay, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil



Maitland, Adam
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, column 2, to leave out the word "Tomatoes."
The Committee must realise that I have never been very much in love with this Bill, but I appreciate that under its title it apparently aims partly at keeping out luxuries. Some of the items in the Schedule can certainly be interpreted as
luxuries. Asparagus is one, and a case can be made out for new potatoes, but not a very strong one. In these days, however, tomatoes have become one of the ordinary articles of diet in working-class homes.

Major COLFOX: Rubbish!

Mr. HARRIS: If the hon. and gallant Member will come to my district, he will
find that tomatoes are a very general diet. In the last two years a variety in diet has been preached by doctors with successful results, and it has largely been responsible for an improvement in the health of children, who used to have to put up with bread and dripping and occasional meat. They have now been encouraged to eat fruit and vegetables, and particularly tomatoes. In fact, in the winter time, when eggs are 3d. each, tomatoes form a convenient substitute to eat with the morning rasher of bacon. The Minister of Agriculture said yesterday:
Quite clearly the tomato is a vegetable used by a great mass of our population, and it would be a foolish thing if any action or Order for which I was responsible I should make it impossible for the mass of our people to get the advantage of eating such a vegetable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1639, Vol. 260.]
By moving this Amendment I am trying to make it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do that foolish thing, and to remove from him the responsibility of making this pleasant article of diet more expensive. I know what pressure will be brought to bear by the interests concerned. I have seen lobbying going on already from various interests, and I have heard in this House and in various parts of the country growers of this and that agricultural product waxing eloquent upon the amount of employment that would be given if they had protection for their produce. The tomato, however, is different in one important respect; it is that in the luxury and expensive side of the trade it is entirely produced in this country under glass. The persons aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman, who in times of stress still indulge in magnificent banquets at which they wish to introduce expensive food, will not buy tomatoes from the Canary Islands; they buy good quality high-class British tomatoes, and those will be grown whatever happens.
I want to ensure that we get cheap tomatoes from abroad in the early months of the year, when other vegetables are expensive and in short supply, in order that they may be obtainable at a, reasonable price in the markets of our provincial towns and in the streets of London. We know how difficult it is to get good vegetables in winter, even
in the House of Commons. Generally, we have to put up with brussels sprouts. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, anxious to keep out foreign vegetables, did not include brussels sprouts in his Bill. It is true they are grown in this country, but they are blessed with a foreign name. We know how difficult it is for us, in our foggy, damp climate, to grow good vegetables in the winter—except under glass. I do not know whether there are any hon. Members representing the tomato industry who want to encourage the putting up of glass-houses. If that be so, I would remind them that this is an emergency Measure, for 12 months only, and that in that period they cannot hope to create a new industry which will provide the country with all the tomatoes it requires.
If we retain the word "tomatoes" in this Bill we shall be adding to the cost of living of ordinary people at a time of great economic stress. There is much hardship in the homes of the people, especially among the unemployed, who have had to submit to a cut in their insurance pay. The Prime Minister told us only a few months ago that it was better to make an open cut in their pay rather than to increase their cost of living by a tariff. I have his speech here, but I will not read it. On 11th September, in this House, he defended the cut in preference to the policy, which hon. Members opposite were charged with desiring, of imposing a 10 per cent. duty for revenue purposes on all articles imported into this country. Now we have a possibility of a duty of 100 per cent. on tomatoes, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to work his wicked worst, and he takes full advantage of the opportunities which this legislation gives him.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday I think the word "tomatoes" slipped into this Bill by accident. He has omitted many things, including the homely onion and brussels sprouts, and I now ask him, towards the close of the proceedings on this Bill, to make us a concession by omitting tomatoes. It would strengthen his Bill, and prevent much of the criticism which is bound to arise, seeing that prices are already advancing. Milk is rising, bread is rising, and we do not want this one
little article—a luxury if you like—which varies the drab, daily diet of the ordinary working-class home to be made more expensive. Tomatoes are the largest item in these imports. No less than £4,000,000 worth of tomatoes are imported every year, mostly, of course, from the Canary Islands. At a time of economic pressure, with a long dull winter before us, and in face of the guarantee by the Prime Minister to do nothing to make life more difficult for the working classes, we beg the Minister not to add to the cost of living in this way.

Mr. COCKS: This is the third time I have risen to take part in these discussions on tomatoes, and I do not apologise for this triple persistence, because after each of my former speeches the Minister of Agriculture has made a certain advance in the direction of defining his intentions. For that I wish to thank him, and I am hopeful that to-night he may make another advance in the direction of meeting our views. In his speech last night the Minister said:
During the winter months we get a good many tomatoes from the Canary Islands and these consignments are admitted at a low price. I do not think they can be termed a luxury. On the other hand, in the months of May, June, July and August, substantial supplies come into our markets from the Netherlands and France, and it is these imports which directly compete with the home produce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1640, Vol. 260.]
From that statement, I take it the Minister means to apply this duty only in those four months, and that in particular because of the competition from Holland, which, incidentally, is more or less a Free Trade country. Let me give the figures showing the wholesale prices of the best quality tomatoes in those four months, as recorded in official statistics. Twelve lbs. is the quantity of tomatoes in each case. In May British tomatoes were 13s. 3d. per 12 lbs., or roughly 1s. 1½d. per lb. Dutch tomatoes, competing ones, 9s., or 9d. per lb. Then there are the cheap tomatoes from the Canary Islands, which, as the Minister will admit, are not competitive at all, and which are the food of the poor people. The price for them is 4s. 11d., or roughly 5d. per lb. To place the British and the Dutch tomatoes on a basis of equality it would be necessary to put a
duty of at least 4d. per lb. on imported tomatoes—not the Dutch alone, it would have to be put on all foreign tomatoes—and that would mean that the price of cheap Canary tomatoes would be 9d. instead of 5d. per lb. In June the price of British tomatoes was 8s. per 12 lbs., or 8d, per lb., Dutch tomatoes 6s. or 6d. per lb., tomatoes from the Canary Islands 4s. or 4d per lb. That will mean a duty of at least 2d. to bring the Dutch tomatoes up to the level of British tomatoes, and the workman will have to pay 6d. per lb. for cheap tomatoes instead of 4d., an increase of 2d. per lb. In July British tomatoes were 6s. 10d. per 12 lbs. or just over 7d. per lb., Dutch 4s. 6d., or 4½d per lb., and tomatoes from the Canary Islands 4s. 6d., or 4½d. If the duty is put on it will mean that the price of cheap tomatoes will be 6½d. per lb. instead of 4½d.—and really it will be a little more, because these are wholesale prices. In August British tomatoes were 5s. to 5s. 2d. per 12 lbs., or just over 5d. per lb., Dutch tomatoes 2s. 8d. or about 2½d. per lb. No Canary Island tomatoes come in the month of August. If a duty is imposed the workman will have to pay 5d. per lb. instead of 2½d.—that would be the wholesale price; it would be more retail. Those are first quality tomatoes. I will not take up the time of the Committee by giving the figures of the second quality tomato, but the proportions are much the same.
My point is that the Minister's proposals mean that the worker will have to pay at least 2d. a lb. more for those cheap Canary Island tomatoes which the Minister admits are not competitive, and as one lb. of tomatoes does not go very far, that means a serious charge on the budget of a housewife whose husband is earning only 40s. a week or under. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the tomato was formerly known as a love apple. Let the Minister show his love for the working people of this country by allowing them to obtain untaxed and cheap tomatoes. Let him enact the part of Paris, and present this love apple to the people. By so doing, he may not gain the favours of the Venus of Bournemouth or the Juno of Spark-brook, but he will win the approval of Pallas Athene, whose praise to a sensible
man like himself is more precious and more lasting.

Mr. BUTLER: This is the first time I have taken part in this Debate, and I do so because I regard this question as the crux of the whole Bill. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) called the tomato a love apple, and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) threw an apple of discord among us by introducing this Amendment. I certainly disagree with my hon. Friend, because I wish to retain tomatoes in this Bill. I regard the tomato as embodying some very great principles in agricultural advance upon which I congratulate the Minister. I believe that in this simple fruit we have embodied two great principles. One is that we treat agricultural products in the way they ought to be treated, that is in the same way as industrial products by imposing a tariff. That is sound economics, and that is the proper way in which to do something to balance our trade in the course of the coming year. On these questions I am willing to face facts, and I told my constituents at the last Election that I would be willing to consider any method whatever, and keep a free hand to use the best method. I think that the method which has been proposed for tomatoes by the Minister of Agriculture is the best.
The second principle which the tomato enshrines is the principle that processed articles in agriculture which undergo a process of manufacture, so to speak, in the glasshouse or the factory, in which case bacon would be included, or any form of processing, are to be treated by the system of a tariff, whereas the crop article should be treated by the system of the quota. I believe that is sound economics. We hear in agriculture something about the law of diminishing returns, and Mr. Venn in his article tells us that this law applies especially to those articles submitted to the attention of the ravages of nature, and he distinguishes between those and the industrial articles which are submitted to treatment in glasshouses or the factory where they come more under control. The law of increasing returns applies, as has been proved, to industrial concerns
like motor cars and other manufactured articles, and if you apply the tariff to the tomato, which is a processed article, it will not respond to the law of diminishing returns but to the law of increasing returns. Therefore, the fears of the hon. Member for Broxtowe will not be justified. The same result will follow as follows in the case of manufactured articles which have been submitted to a tariff. We believe that will be the result of applying a tariff to tomatoes. I maintain that those two principles are the principles upon which the future agricultural policy of this country will be able to establish itself.
Although this is a small question dealing with one particular rare and refreshing fruit, in future, if these principles are applied to our agricultural products, we may look with hope to the success of the Minister of Agriculture in tackling our agricultural problems. As regards tomatoes in particular, I do not entertain the fears expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, which I do not think are justified. I believe that it is quite possible for the Minister to put on a seasonal tariff to deal with tomatoes. I have consulted representatives of the tomato industry in my own district, and far from being Lobbied by them, I have found out the facts of the case. The cheap tomatoes are produced between May and October, and it would be possible to have a date tariff which would meet the fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. In those circumstances, the British crop usually produced between May and October would be able to be produced in the same way as before. Therefore, I think that the fears which have been expressed in regard to the seasonal nature of the tomato can be easily met by the Minister.
I have found in my own district that a new hope has been instilled into this industry as a result of these proposals. Many people have complained of the Government starting their policy in such a small way, and I quite agree with them. I would point out, however, that we have many great problems to face, and if we go on steadily in the right direction, I think we shall succeed. In Stansted, Essex, these proposals will be a help to the men in time for next season's trade, because they mean that the greenhouses
can be dealt with scientifically during the winter, and work done to make the crop a more favourable one. In the course of last winter this particular work was not done, because there was no hope forth-coming from the Ministry of Agriculture. I congratulate the Minister upon including this fruit or vegetable in his Bill. I hope that this Measure will be the germ from which a great agricultural policy for this country will spring.

Major COLFOX: Of the two speeches which have been delivered in support of this Amendment, each contains, in my judgment, its own fallacy. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) seemed to assume that the tomato was a necessity to a working-class family. I entirely combat that idea. I do not, of course, say that the tomato does not appear as an article of diet in a great many working-class homes. I know that it does, and I am very glad that it should. But, nevertheless, it is a luxury and not a necessity, and there is no reason that I can see why anybody, whether rich or poor, who indulges in a luxury, should not pay his quota to the national Exchequer for that privilege and pleasure. The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) entirely overlooked the possibility of tomatoes coming in cheaply during the winter months, and assumed that a tariff put on tomatoes would necessarily raise their price to an extent represented by the various figures that he quoted. I do not profess to be an expert in regard to the prices which are obtainable for tomatoes in different months of the year, and, therefore, I do not wish to suggest that the hon. Member's figures were either right or wrong, but I do know that this Bill proposes to put a tariff only on such tomatoes as are imported from outside the Empire, whereas those which are imported from within the Empire will, as at present, come in free.
9.0 p.m.
The Imperial aspect of this particular duty seems to be in danger of being entirely overlooked. The various West Indian Colonies, all of them units of the British Empire, are in a position to grow tomatoes at a very reasonable cost of production and at times of the year when it is almost impossible to grow tomatoes in this country. The season during which they can be grown and shipped from the different West Indian Colonies varies, of
course, according to the Colony, but roughly it may be said to be from November to April, inclusive—a time when it is impossible to grow any such fruit in England, or even in the Channel Islands. Under the proposals of this Bill, if a tariff is to be put on tomatoes coming from such places as the Canary Islands, North Africa, Italy, Spain, and so forth, while at the same time those grown within the Empire are allowed to come in free, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the price will be raised much, if, indeed, at all, in the English market, because then a hitherto scarcely tapped source of supply will be available to supply the English market. Hitherto there has been little or no encouragement to growers in the West Indies to attempt to develop a market in England, because their supplies have had to undergo a long sea voyage across the Atlantic, and, at any rate, in building up a new trade they would find themselves severely handicapped by the competition from existing sources of supply like the Canary Islands, North Africa and so on. If, however, they were to be assured of an Imperial preference over their competitors outside the Empire, it would be very well worth the while of the different West Indian Islands to organise and build up a trade which would be of immense advantage to themselves and to us in the Motherland as well. Many of the West Indian Islands have been very badly hit by the economic depression, and particularly by the bad times on which the sugar industry has fallen, and, if they could be assured of a preference, and a lasting preference, on this crop, which in that climate is easily grown, they would be in a fair way to regaining some measure of their lost prosperity, and would be able once more to build up a trade in place of that which they have lost. Therefore, I most strongly welcome this proposal in the Bill, not only from the point of view which has been stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), with whom I entirely agree, but also from the Imperial standpoint, which is by no means of little importance. I would, in conclusion, urge upon my right hon. Friend that, when he is considering the details of the imposition of this tax—the rate at which he proposes to impose it and the different times of the year
during which he proposes to impose it—he should consider the claims and possibilities, not only of those people who grow the fruit in this country and the Channel Islands, but also of those who grow the same commodity in more distant parts of the Empire, and particularly in the West Indian Islands.

Dr. SALTER: We have not yet had from the Minister any definite statement as to the period of the year during which this tax is to be imposed, and I want to say a word, on behalf of consumers in the poorer districts of London, against the imposition of a tax at any period of the year, whether it be a date tax or a seasonal tax, to use the terms applied by a previous speaker. In South-East London we have a population of over three-quarters of a million of very poor people indeed. In North Lambeth, Southwark, Walworth, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and Deptford, there is a population of considerably over three-quarters of a million, composed almost wholly of the casual labour class. The artisan class, the small officials, and so on, all moved away years ago to more desirable residential districts, and the people left are people whose average wage to-day—those who are in full employment—does not exceed £2 or £2 5s. a week, out of which extremely heavy rents have to be paid, amounting to one-third and even more of the total wage.
One of the speakers on the opposite side of the Committee stated that he did not consider that tomatoes were an essential item of diet. I would almost go so far as to say that they are an essential item of diet, having regard to the fact that those of whose wants and needs I am speaking are people who cannot afford to purchase the alternative forms of vegetable diet which are necessary in order to keep them in adequate health. The cheap tomato is the particular vegetable which supplies the whole of the vitamin content which from other sources has to be obtained from a whole series of different vegetables, and the improved health of the densely populated working people in the central areas of London and other big towns in recent years is largely, if not wholly, due to more varied and better dietary. I object on their behalf
to increasing the price of this extraordinarily valuable vegetable from the point of view of vitamin content.
It is no use to say that the English tomato is the alternative for these people. The price of the English tomato is absolutely prohibitive to the great mass of the people to whom I am referring and on whose behalf I am speaking. I have made some special inquiries with regard to the street markets in the areas in South London to which I have referred. There are three or four markets, and I have had inquiries made at 248 street stalls, all of which sell tomatoes. Not one of the stallholders ever handled an English tomato. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] I do not know what the hon. Member means. I think it is a shame that people who would buy English tomatoes if they could have not the wages to enable them to do so. They would prefer English tomatoes, as I would, if they could possibly pay for them. None of these stallholders handles an English tomato because the price is prohibitive to their customers. In the larger shops, where English tomatoes are on sale, the price is 1s. 2d. a lb. Foreign tomatoes are on sale on the stalls at 6d., and that represents the outside figure which the poorer working people can pay. During the summer time, when I understand the Minister contemplates imposing the tax, foreign tomatoes, Dutch in particular, are available at 3d. and 4d. a pound retail, and the lowest price of the British tomato anywhere is 8d., and for the most part it is a shilling. If you put 100 per cent. import duty on foreign tomatoes, you are going to rule them out completely from the dietary of the poorer people and put them clean out of their reach.
I was astonished to learn from an hon. Member opposite that, if we put on this proposed tax, the ultimate result would be a reduction in the price. Certainly that is not the experience of tariff countries anywhere in the world. The hon. Member cannot point to a single Protectionist country where food prices are as low as they are here. Wherever tariffs have been put on, there has been an immediate rise of price, and it has been maintained, and to suggest that the imposition of 100 per cent. tax will lead to a reduction in the price of articles such
as tomatoes is ridiculous. Earlier in the Debate we were told that the tax would lead to increased production here, that new glass-houses would be erected, and that it was a most desirable thing to get people back to a healthy country life. That is a most absurd argument, because it is a notorious fact that men who are employed in hot-houses are subject to a much higher death-rate and disease-rate than people who work in the open. They are peculiarly susceptible to pneumonia. The death-rate from pneumonia is higher among workers under glass than any other class of population. Their power of resistance to infection is reduced by working in the torrid atmosphere and the risk of chills and so on, in coming out of a temperature of 80 or 90 degrees to one of 32 or less, enormously increases the danger of pneumonia and similar diseases. We ought to do everything we can to encourage open-air work and to discourage work under glass. I would do everything in my power to prevent the erection of more glass-houses and the employment of more men under those conditions. I believe it to be entirely inimical to the best interests of the working people that they should be driven to employment of this sort. I would much rather see them engaged in open-air work.
We do not possess a climate suitable for the production of tomatoes in the open-air except to a limited extent and for a short period in a year, whereas the districts from most of which our winter supplies of tomatoes come are areas where the tomatoes are grown in the open—the Canary Islands and North Africa—and, looking at it from the larger human point of view, it is very much more satisfactory and economic for the tomatoes to be grown in the open and to be sent here than that we should herd our people under very disadvantageous and unhygienic conditions of labour leading to a largely increased death-rate. I am very strongly opposed, as are a great many others who are interested from a public health point of view, to an increase in the glass-house industry. Clearly one of the objects of a tariff on tomatoes is to extend the glass-house cultivation of tomatoes, because otherwise it is meaningless. From a public health point of view, as well as from the economic point
of view, it is disadvantageous, and I hope that the Amendment will be carried.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have had to consider very carefully the inclusion of tomatoes in this Schedule. I had to ask myself: Is this a matter which involves a large sum of money in importation into this country, does it represent a class of product which can be grown in this country, and is there room for expansion of that industry in order to fill in at any rate a proportion of what we import? I was finally moved to put tomatoes into my Schedule, first of all, because in 1930 we imported into this country no less than £4,545,000 worth of tomatoes. Whatever hon. Members on either side of the Committee may think about the wisdom or unwisdom of their inclusion, I think they will agree that when one is considering the possibility of reducing the imports of goods or food products of which we can quite properly increase the production in this country, it is essential that I should so include them.
I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to those Members who have spoken in support of the view that we should not interfere with the widest use of tomatoes which come into this country at very cheap rates, and which are available to the poorest of our people. Within some measure I am in agreement with that point of view, but there is, on the other hand, a very considerable importation of tomatoes which comes into direct competition with an industry which we can quite properly carry on in this country. I think that it is not beyond the wit of even an unfortunate Minister like myself to devise an Order which will conserve properly a large part of the importation of very cheap tomatoes at certain times of the year, but which, on the other hand, can equally, and, I think, properly, lessen the importation that comes from abroad in competition with an industry in this country which, even in glasshouses, can be expanded very considerably, and which is to-day to my knowledge, being expanded in the Channel Islands, for instance, on the mere promise that the Government are quite determined to do something to stimulate production in our own islands and within our own jurisdiction.
I have listened, also, with interest to those who speak about the properties and value of this food, and no one wants to destroy the production of that food. On the contrary, I am one of those who think that production should be increased. I have heard people say that the glasshouse industry is so unhealthy that it ought to be put down. I am always ready to listen to medical advice, but I confess that I am satisfied we can produce in this country, without any injury to a large number of people, a glasshouse industry which can effectively be used for our own purposes, first of all, to produce fresh fruit at a reasonable price, and, secondly, to reduce the amount of money we expend upon articles of a similar nature from abroad. For those reasons, I am unmoved by anything I have heard, and I can assure the Committee that as far as regards certain parts of the year and certain classes of cheap tomatoes, those matters will be taken into consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am amazed at the figures which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that £4,500,000 worth of tomatoes come into this country. That is proof positive that those tomatoes are the food not of the few but of the many. This is the worst case we have had so far of a genuine tax upon the food of the people. £4,500,000 worth of tomatoes is consumed by the poor people in this country. [interruption.] Almost all of them. The difference in price is enormous. It is the difference between 1s. and 2d., and when you have figures like that you must realise that you are definitely taking steps to stop a very vital foodstuff from coming into the poorest homes of this country. We are offered, almost with a jeer, the alternative of getting these tomatoes grown in hothouses in this country. It is ridiculous to suppose that we can produce by any sort of organisation of industry tomatoes in glasshouses in this country to compete with the article produced abroad in the sun or in the open. Therefore, there is no chance of English-grown tomatoes coming down in price so that the poor can buy them.

Major BRAITHWAITE: As I understand the position, the Minister has power to impose a duty only up to 100 per cent., and if tomatoes now cost 2d. a pound, they cannot possibly cost more
than 4d. if he puts the maximum duty upon them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They will cost 4d. instead of 2d.

Major BRAITHWAITE: That is not 1s. a pound.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The shilling is the price of the English-grown tomato. You are deliberately putting 100 per cent. tariff upon an essential food coming into this country. At one time the tomato was one of the rarest possible vegetables and was very expensive, being produced solely under glass, but for the last generation tomatoes have been one of the chief vegetables eaten by the poorest class of people. You are selecting this product for a tariff which will make this particular food twice as dear as it is to-day, and will not bring the competing foods produced in this country within reach of their larder. I myself produce tomatoes. My tomatoes become ripe about September and October, very late in the year, and I consume them myself.
The question is, Are we going to stop tomatoes from coming in only at one part of the year, or throughout the year? I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he contemplates putting on this monstrous food tax only during certain portions of the year. I should like to know what portions of the year? Because if the tax is put on for those few months—and I am afraid it will be the hottest months of the year, June, July, August, and September—tomatoes will be dearer for the working class, whereas during the rest of the year they may be brought in and the working class may continue to obtain their food. It is during the hottest months of the year that the need for tomatoes in the poorest parts of the country is greatest. Therefore, you are selecting just those months when the population have their lighter meals to block out the tomato from the English market, and shut up all the shops in Deptford and elsewhere. It is cruel to put on a tax just when people need tomatoes most. It is cruel to double the price of an article which has become essential to every poor family in this country. Whereas nearly all the other taxes proposed are taxes upon luxuries, this is essentially a tax which will hit the poor people, and not the well-to-do.
There has been a certain amount of indifference on this question, because it is put out that these are luxuries. This, really, is a tax which is not a luxury tax, but a tax on food. I am bound to say that I think it will produce more unpopularity, more inconvenience and actual ill-health among the people of the country than anything else which either the right hon. Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade have proposed. This is not the thin end of the wedge, but a direct food tax of the worst sort, which will be felt in every home in the country. I beg the right. hon. Gentleman, when he puts the tax on, to put it on for the shortest possible period, and not in the hottest months of the year, and that he will let it be not 100 per cent., adding 2d. per lb. to this article, but a far smaller tax, remembering that

this is not a luxury but a food of the people. I feel so strongly on this question that I wish the Committee would continue to debate it all night long, as we have suspended the Rule. Much as I regard the Statute of Westminster Bill, the next Order on the Paper, as important, this is of far more importance to everybody, and I hope before the Debate closes we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman some sort of guarantee that the tax will not be 100 per cent., and that the months selected for it will not be those months of the year when people need tomatoes most.

Question put, "That the word 'Tomatoes' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 47.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[9.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T, (Leeds,W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Copeland, Ida
Hartland, George A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P,
Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Aske, Sir William Robert
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Atkinson, Cyril
Denville, Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Dickie, John P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Balniel, Lord
Donner, P. W.
Hepworth, Joseph


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Drewe, Cedric
Herbert, George (Rotherham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duggan, Hubert John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Eady, George H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eastwood, John Francis
Hornby, Frank


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Horsbrugh, Florence


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bossom, A. C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C,
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Insklp, Sir Thomas W. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Jamieson, Douglas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Jennings, Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Flanagan, W. H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Browne, Captain A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stake New'gton)


Burghley, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Burnett, John George
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Butler, Richard Austen
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ker, J. Campbell


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gledhill, Gilbert
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Glossap, C. W. H.
Kimball, Lawrence


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Carver, Major William H.
Goldle, Noel B.
Knight, Hoiford


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Granville, Edgar
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Leckle, J. A.


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lees-Jones, John


Chotzner, Alfred James
Grimston, R. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Christie, James Archibald
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Lewis, Oswald


Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Llewellin, Major John J


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Smithers, Waldron


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Pearson, William G.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Petherick, M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Peto,Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Soper, Richard


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Potter, John
Stones, James


MacDonald, Bt. Hn. J. R, (Seaham)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


McKie, John Hamilton
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


McLean, Major Alan
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thompson, Luke


Maclean, Bt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rankin, Robert
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Magnay, Thomas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Maitland, Adam
Raid, David D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Remer, John R.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Manningham-Bulier, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Marjoribanks, Edward
Robinson, John Roland
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Martin, Thomas B.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Millar, James Duncan
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Weymouth, Viscount


Milne, Charles
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Morgan, Robert H.
Salmon, Major Isidore
windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Salt, Edward W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, William Shephard
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wise, Alfred R.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Womersley, Walter James


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Munro, Patrick
Scone, Lord
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Selley, Harry R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nunn, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Blindell.


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Percy A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. Gordon


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Macdonald.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 14 to 17.
Although my name does not appear on the Order Paper in support of the Amendment, I have pleasure in moving it. I was interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture restating as the object of the Bill the desire of the Government to rectify the trade balance. I am inclined to think that the operation of this part of the Bill in that direction will be so negligible as to warrant its deletion from the Schedule. Those hon. Members who desire to rectify the balance of trade have apparently the country behind them.
In that case one would have thought that a simple appeal to the people who sent 400 representatives to this House, to refrain from acting in an unpatriotic manner, as they must be doing to make this Bill necessary, would have been sufficient, but it would appear that, although they supported the present Government at the poll, they are not prepared to act loyally in that direction. The object of the Bill, as stated in the Preamble, is to reduce the importation of products
the production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased, or which are articles of luxury.
Sufficient has been said to indicate that we on these benches are not disposed meekly to accept the concept of luxury which has been expressed on the Government benches. The purchase of flowers is deemed to be something out-with the necessary requirements of the working people, but I remember listening to an address by an individual who is not inclined to my political views who asserted emphatically that every effort on the part of the working-classes to beautify their lives was a definite advance. Therefore, I am prepared to include flowers as one of the needs of life in the tenement system of Scotland, and I am prepared to support the purchase of flowers to any extent that I can. It is one of the mediums through which working people display their affection at the hospitals. The flowers that are taken to hospitals on visiting days and Sundays ought to be kept in mind, and this tendency on the part of working-class people to display their affection for sufferers ought to receive consideration. In regard to the proposal to tax plants that come into the country in flower, such as azaleas, surely it ought to be quite easy to keep them out by appealing to the people who are capable of purchasing them, the people with money, and asking them to refrain from buying them.
With regard to bulbs, the public park departments of various cities and towns from time to time have to purchase large quantities of bulbs, which can only be purchased in the large quantities that are essential because they are cheaper than they can be produced in this country. While it may be the case that there is a tendency on the part of growers in this country to increase the supply of homegrown bulbs, I think the supply is negligible. I should like to know what is a rose tree under this Bill. Is it intended to call a bush a rose tree? Does the definition include the bush form of roses that are imported and purchased by thousands of people in order to respond to the request of the housing authorities that the tenants should endeavour to keep the amenities around their homes as good as they possibly can. In responding to that appeal people buy and successfully grow the rose trees that are imported. It is only a small portion of what is termed a rose tree that is really a rose tree. Many rose trees are grown on briar stock, with briar roots, while there are
rose trees which are grown on rose stock and rose roots. With regard to the duty, it is provided that it may be charged by reference to value, weight, measurement or quantity. What will be the duty on bulbs, rose trees and other things of that description?
The suggestion that the Opposition are hampering a growing and promising industry is one which I cannot accept, especially when it comes from hon. Members opposite, who have constantly told us that a little competition is a good thing. From the journals which cater for the people who have gardens, I gather that there is a growing number of people indulging in this form of activity. If one takes up the gardening manuals you will continually see new names in addition to the old names and, therefore, if this growing industry is to be urged to further effort there is no better method of doing this than to put it on its mettle by a little opposition. I trust that these items will be excluded from the Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have now arrived at the last part of the Schedule which deals with flowers, plants, foliage, bulbs and rose trees. I have no desire, let me say, to prevent people taking flowers to hospitals or to their friends, nor do I desire to stop anybody growing a rose tree in his garden outside his door, but here again there must be some sense of proportion. Two classes of cut flowers are coming into this country. There are the cheap or early French flowers, and the forced flowers, which come into direct competition with our own hothouse flowers. It might be said that anything which would prevent the very early appearance of mimosa and anemones from the South of France would be unreasonable, but at a time like this we must forego some of our luxuries. At the same time, we can vastly increase the production of flowers in our own country, very much to the benefit of that healthy outdoor exercise about which the hon. Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter) lectured us a short time ago. It is true that some of these flowers can be grown under glass, but there are a great number which can be grown in the open.
Take the question of competition in rose trees. The rose trees which come into this country are used for the main
part in private gardens, they are not in the main nursery stock. Unfortunately, it is the fact that these rose trees come in in enormous quantities, are auctioned in the country districts at prices absurdly below the original cost of production, and they really mean that a great many of our gardeners throughout the country are faced with a competition which is unreasonable and unfair. Something like 8,600,000 of these rose trees came into this country mainly from Holland last year. I agree that the question of bulbs is a more difficult problem. Many of the bulbs are the raw material of the flower industry in certain parts of the country. On the other hand, there are parts of the country where we are building up a rapidly increasing and important bulb growing industry, and is it to be said that we are not to help in that matter? It will be the height of folly to put on so high a duty as to hinder or prevent the production of flowers by those in this country who treat bulbs as their raw material. We must have a sense of proportion in this matter and that is the reason why I included bulbs in the Schedule. The Committee has had a considerable and an instructive Debate on this problem, and I hope that it will now allow me to have the remaining part of the Schedule.

Mr. LEWIS: I have been struck with the fact that throughout the whole of the Debates in connection with this Bill, including the Debate on the Financial Resolution and on Second Reading, no one has endeavoured to put the case for the rose growers. One hon. Member has gone so far as to move an Amendment which would take rose trees entirely out of the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, it is time that someone gave the Committee the case of the rose growers and why rose trees should be included in the Schedule. The National Rose Society, which has been in existence for over 50 years and numbers to-day 16,000 members, including not only trade members, but private individuals as well, has for a number of years been spending money in encouraging the development of the rose industry by means of shows and in other ways. Very largely as the result of this the rose growing industry in this country has developed considerably within the last 20 years. Compared with the big indus-
tries, it is, of course, very small, but it is still worth the consideration of the Committee in several respects. It is efficient. No one will deny that they produce the finest roses in the world. It is enterprising, in that it is constantly evolving new types of roses. It is an industry in which workers and employers work very harmoniously together, and the lowest form of labour in the rose growing gardens in this country usually gets the rate of wages laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board, while there are opportunities for those men who desire to become skilled and experienced in their work to get more. On all these grounds the industry is worthy of consideration by the Committee.
In the last two or three years it has been subjected to very severe foreign competition which is threatening to strangle the industry. Let me give the Committee one example from my own constituency. A big rose grower there last year at the end of the season had to destroy 100,000 trees which he had been unable to sell. Yesterday he told me that this season his sales to date are 70,000 trees less than they were last year, and I understand from the representatives of the National Rose Society that they would be well under the mark in saying that, if things continue as they are, the rose growers of this country at the end of this season will have to destroy something like 30 per cent. of the trees they have grown because they have been unable to sell them. As hon. Members know, they cannot be kept for sale after the first year. The root of the difficulty is simply the price. It has been found by the growers in this country that it is not possible to produce for less than 6d. a rose that can be put on the market in the form of a tree 12 months old. The cost varies from 6d. to 10d. a tree in different parts of the country.

Dr. SALTER: Is that wholesale or retail?

Mr. LEWIS: That is the wholesale price. Twelve months ago trees were being offered in competition with them from the Continent at a price of 30s. per 100, that is to say 3½. each. This season they have been sold in large quantities at as low a price as 10s. a 100, and even less, or 1¼ each. It may be true that in some respects the competing foreign
article is inferior to the British article. The foreign article often proves to be diseased, or not to have been grown with sufficient care, so that in its later stages it does not do well. It often proves to have been misdescribed. It is impossible for the purchaser in this country, unless he be a very great expert, to detect the difference on purchase, so that even though it may be inferior the foreign article effectively competes with the British article.
What will happen to these imported trees if they are included under the Bill? The maximum duty that can be put on them is 100 per cent. If that is based on this year's price, say 10s. per hundred, it means a duty of 10s. per hundred, an all-in-cost of, say, 20s. If advantage is taken of the provision in the Bill that the duty can be based, not on this year's price but on the price 12 months ago, the position will be rather more favourable, because the price 12 months ago was 30s. So that 100 per cent. duty on the price 12 months ago, added to the price of 10s., will give an all-in-cost of 40s. Even if that more favourable course is adopted, the foreign trees can be sold at something like 5d. a tree, as against the 6d. which is the lowest price at which they can be produced in this country. I hope that the Minister will make the regulations as tight as possible to get over that difficulty. It is not competent for a private Member to move an increased charge, and I should not have been in order if I had endeavoured to move, as I would have liked to have done, a maximum duty of 6d. a tree for rose trees, leaving the 100 per cent. duty for other things. It is not possible for the Minister to do that on the Report stage of the Bill, because he is limited by the terms of his own financial Resolution. It would, of course, be possible to produce a new financial Resolution, but that is asking too much with existing demands on Parliamentary time.
Undoubtedly this difficulty has arisen largely as an oversight. The Minister has not had an opportunity of seeing the representatives of the National Rose Society or of the smaller professional body, the British Rose Growers' Association. I do not complain of that. I know that the Bill has had to be produced in a great hurry. But if the Minister has
had an opportunity of seeing representatives of these societies I feel sure that he would have dealt with this matter in a different way. I am certain that he is anxious to give efficient protection to the rose growers in this country. I believe he is genuinely anxious to keep out a large proportion of these foreign competing trees. I am sorry that it is not possible now to suggest an Amendment to the Bill, but I think that the Committee as a whole will feel that an overwhelming case can be made out for British rose trees getting that amount of protection which they can get under the Bill.
10.0 p.m.
Apart from the financial benefit to the rose growers of this country, the increased employment and the rest of it, there is another aspect of the matter, and that is looking to the future of rose growing in this country. The rose growers for some years have been very gravely concerned at the spread of a disease known as rust. The disease undoubtedly shows signs of spreading more rapidly where there are large importations of foreign trees. If something can be done to limit the importation of these foreign trees we shall go a long way towards making it possible to control the disease and assist the permanent benefit of an industry which no Member of this House would like to see drop out.

Dr. SALTER: The last speaker asked the Minister whether, before he decided finally on the amount of duty that he was to impose, he would see representatives of the National Rose Society. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see representatives of the National Gardens Guild, a very important body with many hundreds of thousands of affiliated members. I will try to put to the Committee a side of the case with which most Members are probably entirely unfamiliar. There are huge districts in our great industrial towns, and particularly in London, very sordid, very drab and very grey, where there is practically no garden space, only a small forecourt or backyard, very often paved or asphalted. It is impossible in those areas for the inhabitants to grow much in the way of flowers, or to do much of what we understand by gardening, but owing to the efforts of a large number
of social and philanthropic organisations in recent years, and particularly as a result of the activities of the National Gardens Guild and the London Gardens Guild, there has been encouraged the development of plant culture on window sills, in pots and boxes, and even on paved forecourts, to an extent that, if it could be estimated, would probably astonish hon. Members.
I happen to know the figures in regard to the Bermondsey area where a large proportion of the population occupy great tenement blocks or else very small houses in connection with which the garden space is very cramped. The local Gardens Guild in that borough has in recent years encouraged the cultivation of flowers and plants and, as a result, last year there were 2,880 competitors in a competition for forecourt, backyard and window sill displays, and the great majority of those competitors exhibited rose blooms. They obtained their rose trees from Messrs. Woolworths at 3d. or 6d., whereas the cheapest English-grown rose trees are from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. In the confined and sooty central areas of London rose trees will not endure for more than one season or at the most two seasons. Consequently, these people have to purchase every year.
In this matter, we are really covering the same ground as we did in regard to tomatoes, because we say that by these proposals you are going to deprive these people of the possibility of obtaining the pleasure of cultivating roses. They cannot, like hon. Members opposite who have nice gardens in residential districts, grow their rose trees from year to year. They are obliged to get a new specimen every year or sometimes even two in the same season. The market for these very cheap rose trees is almost entirely among the poorest of the people. These trees are not purchased by the well-to-do people in the suburban areas. They are almost wholly confined to working-class districts, and, if you keep them out or put a prohibitive duty upon them, you will abolish for the people whom I represent, the pleasures of rose cultivation.

Mr. D. D. REID: I happen to represent a constituency which grows a great number of roses, and I would like to make some comments on the speech of the hon.
Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter). I am sure that no one in the Committee wishes to do anything to injure the cultivation of flowers or plants by the people of whom he has spoken, but I think that some of his statements are exaggerated. He speaks of buying rose trees in Woolworths for 3d. or 6d. but that is nothing like the price of which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was complaining. The price of which he was complaining is more like one-third of 3d.

Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member for Colchester was referring exclusively to wholesale prices whereas I was referring to retail prices.

Mr. REID: At the other end of the scale I suggest that there is also exaggeration in the hon. Member's statement. He speaks of home-grown roses being sold at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. I am familiar with the catalogues of most of the principal rose growers, and I think he will find in the catalogues of the biggest growers very much lower prices than those. Indeed, I would say that 9d. or 1s. is an average price. We have no desire to interfere with the work to which the lion. Member for Bermondsey West refers, but he has said that these roses do not go to the suburban gardens. Our information is that they do go to the suburban gardens and that they do enter into practical competition with the roses raised by British labour in this country. These roses to which reference has been made are raised in one or two countries on the Continent. Formerly a great many of them went to Germany and America and some other countries. All those markets are now shut to them. Importation into those countries is now strictly prohibited with the result that the growers in Holland and elsewhere, when they have sold all the roses which they can sell through the normal channels, have a surplus stock remaining, for which they can find no other outlet but by dumping in this country. That is the only thing which we want to stop. If the roses are grown and sold at something like the cost of production our growers have nothing to fear. What they protest against is surplus stocks which
have been left over being dumped into this country and brought into competition with roses raised under decent conditions by British employers with British labour.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 39.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eady, George H.
Knight, Holford


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Eastwood, John Francis
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Albery, Irving James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lees-Jones, John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lewis, Oswald


Apsley, Lord
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Aske, Sir William Robert
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Llewellin, Major John J.


Atkinson, Cyril
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Flanagan, W. H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Balniel, Lord
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fromantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKeag, William


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Major Alan


Bossom, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Bowater, Col. sir T. Vansittart
Granville, Edgar
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bowyer, Capt, Sir George E. w.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Magnay, Thomas


Boyce, H. Leslie
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maitland, Adam


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Grimston, R. v.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartland, George A.
Martin, Thomas B.


Burghley, Lord
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Burnett, John George
Harvey, Majors S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Millar, James Duncan


Butler, Richard Austen
Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)
Milne, Charles


Calne, G. R. Hall-
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hellgers, captain F. F. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C, R, (Ayr)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Morgan, Robert H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Carver, Major William H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hepworth, Joseph
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Munro, Patrick


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Chotzner, Altred James
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William


Christie, James Archibald
Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Clarry, Reginald George
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Colville, Major David John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pearson, William G.


Copeland, Ida
Hurd, Percy A.
Peat, Charles U.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Petherick, M.


Crooke, J. Smedley
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jamieson, Douglas
Pickering, Ernest H.


Crossley, A. C.
Jennings, Roland
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Potter, John


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Denville, Alfred
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Dickie, John P.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Donner, P. W.
Ker, J. Campbell
Pybus, Percy John


Drewe, Cedric
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin


Duckworth, George A. V.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Duggan, Hubert John
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ramsden, E.


Rankin, Robert
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, Captain D. E, (Hornsey)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Remer, John R.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


Robinson, John Roland
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ross, Ranald D.
Soper, Richard
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stones, James
Windsor-CIive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russeil, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Strauss, Edward A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wise, Alfred R.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Walter James


Salt, Edward W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thompson, Luke
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Scone, Lord
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Selley, Harry R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th December],
That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
I rise to resume my argument in favour of my Amendment. I ask the indulgence of the House in this argument and of your special indulgence, Mr. Speaker. You know that I and some of my hon. Friends hold strong views about this Statute as a whole, and it is sometimes difficult to exclude general arguments about it from technical arguments. I know that this argument must necessarily
be of a technical nature, and I leave conscientiously considered, as far as I can, to see how I can advance arguments in a proper manner within the technical limits of the Amendment. The Government placed those who have been considering this Lords Amendment in some difficulty last night, because after a discussion of six hours on the subject of vegetables, we were given five minutes to discuss the question of the date when the new constitution for the British Empire should come into operation. The question of date is of paramount importance in this matter, and we were not perhaps unreasonable in insisting that more that five minutes' debate should be given to it.
I was not surprised that the Government treated us in that way, because that has been their consistent policy on every stage of this Bill, but I appreciate the point of view of and the argument which will no doubt be adduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He will say that this is a mere drafting Amendment. As a man of great Parliamentary and legal experience, he will appreciate that that is the kind of argument which is always
adduced when a Government find themselves in a technical difficulty, when they have left out something which ought to have been inserted and then repent at the eleventh hour. He will realise that that argument is also constantly used in the Law Courts. But it needs very little research indeed to realise that this is not merely a drafting Amendment, but one of paramount importance. One has only to look at the resolutions of the Imperial Conference, upon which the Statute of Westminster Bill is based. We have been told throughout the Debate, by every right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who has spoken, that those Resolutions must be regarded as a law of the Medes and Persians; that they are the foundation of the Statute of Westminster Bill; that we must not depart from them by one jot or tittle, because they are a promise we have made to the Dominions, an agreement of honour which the House is pledged to fulfil precisely, as has been requested and demanded. The first operative Resolution of the Imperial Conference is contained in this Official Report of—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the whole history of the Statute.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was coming to the Resolution on which this Subsection must have been based. In that Resolution of the Imperial Conference it says that the let December, 1931, should be the date as from which the proposed Statute should become operative. Clearly, this Sub-section was put into the Statute of Westminster Bill in order to give legal form to that Resolution. Indeed, the precise words will be found in Sub-section (2) at the end of Clause 12. It is the Sub-section which the Lords now seek to eradicate from the Bill, and that is a violation of a most solemn pledge given to the Imperial Conference. Therefore, if we are to place any weight whatever upon the argument which was brought forward again and again that this Bill and this Sub-section embody a pledge definitely given at the Imperial Conference—it is an argument which has been consistently adduced by the Secretary of State for the Dominions and by the Solicitor-General and others—then we must admit that that pledge has been violated already by the Lords Amend-
ment which seeks to take out of this Bill this solemn pledge given to the Dominions.
10.30 p.m.
I wish to place only this reliance upon that point, that having regard to the fact that we have already broken that solemn pledge the whole situation has now changed with regard to the matter of the date. That is why I have produced my Amendment that the Lords Amendment be considered this day three months, or, alternatively, be laid aside, so that we can come to some understanding in regard to the date. If this Amendment be carried, if we agree with the Lords in their Amendment, then this Bill will come into immediate operation as soon as the Royal Assent is given—whenever that may be, and I cannot possibly say when that will be. If, on the other hand, this Amendment of the Lords is not agreed to, then it will be clear on the face of things that the pledge to the Dominions has been broken, and that the Bill is self-contradictory in its very terms. If there was a solemn pledge with regard to the date of 1st December, there was also a solemn pledge with regard to the other proposals in this Bill. As we have already broken our pledge with regard to the precise date, it cannot make any difference in principle whether we delay this Measure for another week or another month. We have already broken our pledge and merely for the sake of putting this Statute into operation immediately, surely it would not be just not to grant our request that we should have a few days or weeks more for the consideration of this Measure, especially having regard to the circumstances which have arisen.
This proposal to lay aside the Lords Amendment is justified by precedent, and circumstances have arisen during the last few days which wholly alter the situation. There has been a change of Government in Australia and those Australian representatives who supported this Statute—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is not in order. The hon. Member is really arguing against the Bill.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was not proposing to argue against the Bill. I was arguing about the date on which the Bill should come into operation, and whether a further consultation would not be ad-
visable in the present circumstances. There may be a change of Government in Australia, and the Secretary of State for the Dominions in supporting this Bill placed great reliance on the opinion of the Governments of the Dominions. Public opinion in the Dominions may have changed since the last Imperial Conference, and there is to be a General Election in Australia and a new Imperial Conference. We are told that we are now fulfilling a pledge given at the last Imperial Conference, and it is useless for the Secretary of State for the Dominions to say that you could not raise a constitutional question at the Imperial Conference.
I think that I have made myself plain with regard to the facts. The pledge given by the Dominions reinforces my argument for a revision with regard to the question of the date, and the date is the essence of this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words as regards the merit of leaving out this Sub-section or including it. This is the subject matter of the Amendment with which the Solicitor-General proposes to agree. My argument is that the course adopted by the Government is contrary to the tradition and the custom in England with regard to laws recently passed. Respect for laws is one of the traditions of the English character. We have been told by those who defended this course in this or the other House that this is a Statute not to be regarded seriously, and I will quote the words of the learned Viscount—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot repeat the arguments used in another place in order to influence this House.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: These arguments were not used in another place, and that is not my object. My object is to put this Bill before the country in the way which is most beneficial to the country and the Empire, and I will reinforce my argument as to whether I am in order or not by quoting the words of Lord Hailsham. He said:
We English are sufficiently flexible and sufficiently sensible to allow Statutes which have become obsolete to remain inoperative. I do not see why this Statute of Westminster, even if it contains some of the dangers which some people see in it, should not share the fate of its earlier predecessors. I believe that the Statute of West-
minster, whether it is strictly a correct legal document or not, is regarded, by many of the Dominions at any rate, as a legal expression of the Balfour Declaration.
As far as I understand the argument of the Noble and learned Viscount, it was that this is a solemn pledge which we must fulfil to the Dominions, but that it is not a Bill which ought to be taken seriously. He later described the Bill as a "strait jacket" in which the British Empire would never be mad enough to place itself. I do not know whether that was consistent with the English tradition which always regards a law which has recently been passed as one which should be observed and obeyed, or whether the Noble and learned Viscount had in mind other words which were used by the great American President who presided over the Congress which determined what the American Constitution should be which has lasted for two centuries—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with the whole principle of the Bill, and that is entirely out of order on this Motion.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If that were my only argument, it would be out of order, but my argument is—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order even though it be part of the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: My object is to show that this is a most exceptional Statute, and that, having regard to the fact that it is a most exceptional Statute, and is to be disregarded, according to the advice of those people who have been concerned to defend it both here and in another place, it is far better that this Statute should be marked out as one which is not to be regarded, because it contains utterly contradictory pro-visions—

Mr. SPEAKER: That might be an argument against the Bill, but on this Motion arguments either for or against the Bill are out of order.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is an argument for the inclusion in this Statute of Sub-section (2), which my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to exclude, in order that people may mark the Statute out as one which has not had the ordi-
nary consideration that is usually given by Parliament to Measures of this immense importance. I urge that these words should be included in this Statute in order that Lord Hailsham's prophecy in regard to the Statute may be fulfilled more easily, and in order that they may be a mark of the lack of consideration—

Mr. SPEAKER: Now the hon. Member is erring on the other side. In order to influence this House, he is dealing with arguments which were used in another place.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: No, Sir. With great respect, I thought I informed you that the speech from which I quoted was not delivered in Parliament, but was de- livered, I think on the 10th November, before the Royal Empire Society, where the Noble and learned Lord was the only speaker present who took that point of view. I urge that these words should be included in the Statute, in order that that express prophecy should he fulfilled, in order that this strait jacket shall never be worn, in order that it shall be relegated into the cobwebs of the obscurity which it deserves, in order that they may be a mark of the scanty consideration which the Government have allowed to be given to this Measure, and in order that they may be a standing justification of the few lawyers and Unionists who, as best they could, have opposed this Measure with all their strength.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to risk incurring your displeasure or being ruled out of order by entering into the merits or demerits of this Measure, but only to support my hon. Friend's request that more time should be allowed for its consideration. There are three reasons which I would adduce for my support of my hon. Friend. One is that we took 400 years to build up this Empire, and now we are giving it away in two days, and I think that that reason alone for further and more meticulous inquiry is one which is well worthy of consideration. The second reason is that we have some pretty adequate information as to the attitude of some of the Dominions on the question of delay. Several States in one of the Dominions, and New
Zealand itself, have expressed a desire for further consideration of the Bill and it would, therefore, be advisable in the interests of the Dominions that they should have that facility and that we should have the benefit of their advice. In an answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in regard to New Zealand's attitude, as far as I could gather, it was very unsatisfactory.
There is another point, which I have raised before and which might very well be brought into this argument. If the Imperial Economic Conference is going to be held at an earlier date than was originally proposed, surely in the atmosphere it may engender there may well be a further atmosphere of a closer political union between various parts of the Empire. May I put one last argument on the somewhat debatable point of India? We have been told that Dominion status may be granted to India. Surely, in this new era, which may mean so much for the future of India, it would be advisable to have three months in which to see what Dominion status is likely to mean to India, and we should have that time further to investigate and decide whether this Statute can be put into operation at the end of that three months or whether, in view of the new facts that may be elicited—

Mr. SPEAKER: To put it off for three months is to kill the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is the Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment, if carried, would kill the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I thought that in three months time the House would be sitting again, and, therefore, we should have an opportunity of discussing it after the period of three months had transpired, when we should have all that further information before us which would enable us perhaps to come to a wiser decision.

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 12.—(Short title and commencement.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, leave out Sub-section (2).

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is only necessary to say, after the speeches to which we have listened, that this is an Amendment which will, I think, commend itself to the common sense of the House. The Bill, as it left this House, contained a provision that it should conic into operation on 1st December. As 1st December has passed, before the exigencies of Parliamentary time has permitted it to pass through another House through all its stages, it must be conformable only to common sense that we should omit the provision that it should come into force at a date which has already passed. The effect of assenting to the Amendment will be that the Bill will come into force when it receives the Royal Assent. I hope that fact will be sufficient to convince the House that the entertaining speech, which it is difficult to take very seriously, of the hon. and learned Gentleman has no substance in it.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not concluded his observations with his last remark, I should not have spoken again, but I will say this, that he has obviously missed the whole point of my argument. This is a most exceptional Statute. We have been told to disregard it entirely by those responsible for it. We have been told that it means nothing, and that is why I want it to be marked out from all the other Statutes by having a contradictory provision in it. I wanted it to be obvious that it is a Statute which should be ignored, as we have been told it should be ignored. It is absolutely unique and I want the whole world and the Dominions to understand that this Statute is nothing in the great and memorable history of the British Empire.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally:
Mr. Bernays, Mr. Bracken, Mr. Cove, Mr. Hall-Caine, Lieutenant-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Hammersley, Sir Basil Pete, Dr. Salter, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Rear-Admiral Sueter, and Mr. Summersby nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three he the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them beet suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ainsworth, Mr. Batey, Mr. E. T. Campbell, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Curry, Mr. D. L. Davies, Mr. Harris, Captain Ronald Henderson, Mr. Hurd, Brigadier-General Makins, Miss Pickford, Mr. Savory, Mr. Annesley Somerville, and Mr. Templeton nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hallaton and parts of the rural districts of Billesdon, Melton Mowbray, Barrow-upon Soar, Lough-borough, and Market Harborough, in the county of Leicester, which was presented on the 17th day of November, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Pybus.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LAND VALUE TAX (VALUATION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. ATTLEE: I rise to call attention to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day with regard to the Land Valuation Department and the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1931. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and his answer did not seem to me to deal with the point which I raised. If one looks at the Finance Act, 1931, it is obvious that it lays down clearly that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall, as soon as may be after every valuation date, cause to be ascertained at that date the land value of every land unit for the purposes of the Act. That is the order of this House. It is a Bill passed in due form into the law of the the land. It lays dawn that on a certain date, that is to say, 1st January, 1932, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall take certain steps, shall value land and so forth for the purposes of that Act.
I always understood that when an Act became the law of the land, it was the duty of every citizen to carry out the law. I have yet to learn how the right hon. Gentleman has any right to disobey the law without any statutory justification. The right hon. Gentleman comes along and says, "I do not, propose to obey the Finance Act, 1931." The Finance Act has been passed. It has ordered certain things to be done, and the right hon. Gentleman merely says, "Oh, by an administrative Order I am
simply going to disregard the law entirely. I am not going to take any steps with regard to valuation. I am going to dismiss all the officers who have been appointed to deal with this valuation." Without appealing to this House and without any attempt at altering the law, the right hon. Gentleman has simply put himself into the position of a dictator. We have had a good deal of steady en croachment by the executive on the legislature, but I think that this is going rather far.
I suppose that there has never been quite such a docile House as this. We have an entirely new method of taxation now under which, instead of the House of Commons imposing taxes, we give power to the various Ministers—to the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade, and so on—from time to time, as they please, to tax what persons at what amount they choose. Now we have something further, and an Act of Parliament is, apparently, to be put aside by the right hon. Gentleman on his own initiative. For some reason or other he is in a great hurry. He is pressed by hon. Gentlemen all over the House. They want their pound of flesh, because no one will take the plea of economy seriously. There is nothing of economy about it at all. We know perfectly well that the Conservative party hate and loathe the Land Duties, and have been clamouring to get rid of them, and with a Conservative or Coalition Government with a majority of Conservatives returned, even if the pound were looking its best and the country's finances were flourishing, they would still have objected to this and have made their Minister toe the line.
It is worth while glancing at the reason, which is to he found in the speeches that were made by the Lord Privy Seal when he was in the House of Commons. He explained to the House that this was the first real attack on the land monopoly of the country. The land monopoly was the greatest burden on industry. I understood that we wanted to lift off the burden from industry, and I want to know what the Lord Privy Seal is doing in this crisis in deliberately keeping on the heaviest burden on industry? I do not know whether, with the House of Commons' right to decide taxes and the right hon.
Gentleman's power to dispense with the law—and he is the first man to do it—the collective responsibility of the Cabinet has gone also. I suppose that this has been approved by the Lord Privy Seal. Let us see what he said on a previous occasion. He said that this was a far-reaching step which would liberate the land for the people and abolish once and for all the tyranny under which the people of this country have suffered. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree, but their colleagues in the Cabinet agreed. I have quoted the Lord Privy Seal. Let us see what the Home Secretary said. He was enthusiastic; so were the Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Scotland. But let us see what the Home Secretary said:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will speak on this matter, in which he has a special interest.
Then came a voice,
He turned it down.
The right hon. Gentleman replied,
He was in bad company in those days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1931; col. 1667, Vol. 251.]
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is in bad company now. The reason is perfectly clear. If anyone studies the questions put by hon. Members opposite it is plain that there is no question of economy whatever in this. It is simply that the Conservative party are demanding their pound of flesh. They are certainly rubbing it in with the Lord Privy Seal. He has been deprived of his Socialism, of his Free Trade and now of his Land Tax, and there is nothing left to him but his coronet.
I should like to know what is going to happen to the staff engaged to make this valuation. There must have been a staff ready, because the valuation was to start on 2nd January, 1932. There must have been gentlemen with high professional qualifications brought there, and what is going to happen to them? Are they going to be thrown out of jobs altogether, or are they, perhaps, to be turned on to other work with regard to customs and tariffs? There is a further point on which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something. What is
going to be the actual course of events after 2nd January, 1932? The right hon. Gentleman is a James the Second, and is dispensing with the law, but he intends also to make the Commissioners break the law. It will be the Attorney-General's duty to see that the Commissioners carry out the law, so that we are going to have the House even more divided against itself than at the present time, because we shall have the Attorney-General, I hope, bringing to book the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that this is something against which the House, even though it is a new House of Commons, should strongly protest. We thought that the power to dispense with the law had been finally abolished. If it was not good enough for us to allow a King to do that, I hope we shall not allow a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not surprised that the hon. Member has taken the course which I expected he would take. When he came to look into the Finance Act of 1931 he found that there was not sufficient ground for the question which he put to me this afternoon. Therefore, he has had to change his ground and to substitute for the attack which he proposed to make, a general attack upon the consistency of the Members of His Majesty's Government. He is not a great authority on consistency himself, for in one breath he has been saying that this is the most docile House he has ever known and in the next breath he told us that we have to toe the line to meet the demands made upon us. I leave him to reconcile those two points of view as to the conduct of the present House.
He will forgive me if I do not enter into a disquisition as to the merits of the case, because it is not on the merits of the Land Value Tax or of the Land Valuation that the decision of the Government, which I announced this afternoon, has been taken. It is simply and solely on the question of economy. A matter of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 does not seem worth while troubling about, according to the hon. and gallant Member. It was exactly that attitude of mind which brought the country to the necessity of supporting a Government which took responsibility from its predecessors, who ran away.
As to the technical point on which the hon. Member has attacked me, I would say that there is no breach of the law here at all. He is quite mistaken in his view as to the provisions of the Act. The operative part of the Act is that which prescribes that the tax, according to Section 10, is to be levied for the year ending the 31st March, 1934. The tax is to be collectable on the 1st July, 1934, provided that the valuation is complete in time to allow the tax to be collected on that date, and provided that in the meantime this House does not alter the Act so that the tax shall not be collectable on the 1st July, 1934. Therefore, it does not matter whether the valuation is completed now or whether it is completed at some time in the future, so long as it is completed in time to enable the tax to be collected on 1st July, 1934. The Statute say, "as soon as may be." What is, "as soon as may he?" Obviously, this valuation cannot proceed unless there is money to pay for those who are engaged in the valuation. That money will not be forthcoming unless the House votes the money, and that money will not be voted by the House unless the Government ask the House to vote it. The Government informed the House this afternoon that it does not propose to ask the House to vote that money.

It is obvious that the money to carry out the valuation will not be forthcoming—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked what is going to become of the staff. The staff were engaged on a temporary basis; that was the term of their engagement. They will therefore receive the notice, which is one of the terms of their engagement, and after that they will he free to seek other employment.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The House has listened to a most extraordinary speech. During the last four or five weeks we have seen the Government riding roughshod over the ordinary privileges of Parliament, but we did not expect them to succumb so early to such
a speedy and complete defiance of the constitution of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the operative part of the Finance Act of 1931 is the tax which comes into operation in 1934. The operative part of the Act is whatever the Act says shall be the operative part. It may be that the tax may never be imposed at all, but that would not relieve the Government of the obligation of making this valuation. It is not that the valuation is a piece of mere administration. It is an obligation laid upon the Government, not an administrative act; and in the event of an administrative act of the Government being in the view of the House unwise or inexpedient the House can move a Vote of Censure upon the Government. But this is not an act of administration. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Member of the Government to retard or accelerate a piece of administration. That is a matter entirely in their hands, and the House has no control except by moving a Vote of Censure. But that is not the point we are raising here.
We are not raising the point that the Government in the exercise of their prerogative have retarded the administration of an Act of Parliament. What we are charging the Government with is a complete defiance of the will of Parliament. Hon. Members may regard this matter lightly, but every hon. Member, whether he is a Tory, a Liberal, a National Liberal or a Member of the Socialist party, is the custodian of the privileges of this House, and no Government ought to be tolerated because they have succumbed to forces outside this Chamber. [Interruption.] It has become notorious that the policies of this Government are not made in this Chamber at all but at deputations at the Carlton Club, or wherever hon. Members opposite may foregather. The Minister has not replied to the point. The Act says that the Commissioners "shall, as soon as may be after every valuation date" cause a valuation to be made. "As soon as may he" is an ordinary legal term meaning I am informed, "as soon as possible." That means in this case "immediately after" the Act has been passed.
I do not know whether the National Government will say that they have not at their disposal the same wisdom as the last Government. I should have thought
that this Government would have found possible what the last Government found possible. This Statute does not use extraordinary language. Many Statutes contain exactly the same phrase and it is assumed, if that language has been passed by the House and has received the assent of the Crown, that the Government will proceed to carry it into effect. As we understand it, it will not be the duty of the Attorney-General to consider whether land taxes are palatable or unpalatable. At least, it was considered the duty of the Attorney-General in 1924 to ignore the politics of the Government of the day. As we understand it, it will be the duty of the Attorney-General to ascertain what is the law, and what is the will of Parliament and it will be his duty to prosecute the right hon. Gentleman, if he prevents the Commissioners from carrying out the duty laid upon them. It will be his duty to prosecute the Commissioners upon whom the Act lays the obligation to carry out the valuation, if they fail to do so. To this point the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself at all. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard this as a subject for hilarity. I ask them to realise that if the mere fact that an Act is undesirable, the mere fact that an Act is repugnant is to be given as a reason why that Act should be violated, then they are setting a very dangerous precedent. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that he is exposing himself to a serious charge. If the valuation is not preceeded with and the Attorney-General does not take steps to carry out the will of Parliament, it will be our obligation to accuse the Government of violating the will of Parliament in order to prevent the carrying out of an Act of Parliament merely on the ground that it is politically repugnant to them.
I would also call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the House has already voted money for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman may have been returned as a Member of a National Government. He may have behind him a majority of 400 or 500 but he is not yet, in himself, the House of Commons, and the Tory party in itself is not yet the House of Commons. [Interruption.] At least there are certain forms which we have to go through. Do not be quite so brutal. If you are going to
have a dictatorship please consider Constitutional forms. Some day they may save your heads. It is enough for a large majority to be returned to the House of Commons; it is enough for Members to put questions; it is enough for them to bring pressure to bear, and along comes a Minister of the Crown surrendering to the clamour of back-benchers, not presenting a Bill at all, but merely coming and saying, "Yes, we agree that this Act was undesirable. We do not like it. It was repugnant to us and we do not propose to carry it out."
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's last statement was rather feeble. If this is an economy proposal why was not the repeal of this Section of the first Finance Act, 1931, included in the provisions of the second Finance Act? If the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion that, having gone off the Gold Standard, it was so necessary that economy should be made in this direction at the moment, why were not these provisions contained in the second Finance Act, 1931? That was the Economy Act. At that time the country was attempting to prevent the currency going off the Gold Standard. It was the whole aim of Parliament. The last election was fought to try to defend, as far as possible, the value of the pound sterling. This is not a matter in which we are purchasing goods from the foreigner. It is not a matter of the balance of trade. It is not a matter of paying anyone good pounds for stuff supplied from abroad. But it is a matter of internal economy and has nothing to do with the balance of trade.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the excuse he has brought forward to-night he has simply revealed that what he has done in a most flaccid, feeble and cowardly way, he has succumbed to the pressure that has been put upon him. I can sympathise with him, for I am not raising the matter at all because land taxes are favourable to me. I have a view about them which it would be improper and out of order for me to advance now. I am not concerned at all about the land taxes, but I am concerned about the prerogatives and privileges of this House, and it is the duty of His Majesty's Opposition, if the Government have no regard for them, to defend them as best they may. I know
that the right hon. Gentleman has his docile hordes behind him. They will do whatever he asks them to do, provided that he dances according to their tune. If it is economy there is no obstacle. I am reminded that the obstacle might be in the other House.
Although this is a controversial matter, I am raising it as a point of constitutional importance. The right hon. Gentleman will say to all these people who have been engaged on land valuation, "We no longer have any use for your services. It is true that the State entered into a contract with you which you thought was good till 1934, and that the House of Commons has voted the money for the purpose, but, without consulting the House, in our wisdom we have decided that not only will we flout the House of Commons, but we will violate the contract into which we have entered with you." Then this House has to wait until the Finance Bill of 1932 to indemnity the Government for their action, although in the meantime the House is sitting.
The learned Solicitor-General is interested in an argument on the other side, but he should attend to his job, which is the matter now before the House. Having regard to the fact that hospitality has not been found for his superior, he is for the moment in charge of the legal opinions of the Government. If we cannot press this matter to a conclusion now, we shall have to do so at some other time, and the question is whether it is competent for the Government to arrest the administration of an Act of Parliament, and to set aside the obligation which the House has imposed on the Government, while the House is sitting, until such time as the House is asked to indemnify the Government some four or five months hence. Is not that a complete abrogation of the functions of the House of Commons?
I suggest, in all seriousness, without making one comment upon whether these taxes are good or bad, that although some hon. Members may have strong prejudices about them and may desire at the earliest possible moment to bring them to an end, it is not a good thing for this House to allow the Government, because of considerations of political expediency and internecine conflict, to
flout the will of the House and take from it privileges which for 400 years have been the pride of this country.

Mr. LAMBERT: The real point is that it would be quite impossible for the Government to carry on this land valuation in the present House of Commons. There is no question but that there is an enormous majority in this House against these land taxes.

Mr. BEVAN: Who knows that yet?

Mr. LAMBERT: If my hon. Friend does not think there is, I can only think that he has not been watching the House of Commons.

Mr. BEVAN: May I suggest that it was not my case that there might not be a majority in the House for the repeal, but no Government has a right to assume support in the House of Commons; it must win it.

Mr. LAMBERT: If the Government put that to the test, it would win it. Whatever may be the constitutional argument, in my judgment, the Government are perfectly right in suspending these duties.

Mr. McGOVERN: Oh!

Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member should not get excited. I am not excited.

Mr. McGOVERN: No, you are delighted; you are a landlord.

Mr. LAMBERT: Yes. I never believed in these taxes, and I am glad that they will disappear. I should have wished that the Government had repealed the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel. That would have been the wisest course, but as it is I congratulate them upon having suspended these duties. They could not carry them on in this House of Commons. There have been 700 officials appointed in the last few months for this land valuation, which is perfectly useless. I will not argue the merits of the question of the falling pound, but when my hon. Friend said, "What will you do with these officials?" I thought we had been passing a Bill which was quite admirable for them—the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Bill. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he puts them to growing new potatoes and tomatoes.

Mr. COCKS: I am profoundly shocked by the remarks we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the oldest Members of this House. If he had not been interrupted in his political career, he would have been almost the Father of the House. We have seen the spectacle of this right hon. Gentleman, who was nurtured under the eyes of the great Mr. Gladstone, getting up and saying he does not care a rap for constitutional principles. But he objects to this Land Tax, and says that the whole thing ought to be torn up, and that he does not care if the Constitution is torn up with it. How are the mighty fallen, and to what depths of degradation have the great Liberal party descended! The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was a large majority against Land Taxes in the House. But is there an overwhelming majority in the Cabinet? Are there not members of the Cabinet who stand by the Land Tax and do not want to see it wiped out in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. What the Government are doing is to get out of the difficulty of a difference of opinion in the Cabinet by rendering the tax of no avail by an administrative act which my hon. Friend has shown to be absolutely unconstitutional. The House has a right to demand an answer on these points.
It was stated during the Debate on the Finance Act that it would take two years to make the valuation before the tax could be imposed. That is why the tax was postponed till 1934. By stopping the valuation the Government will make it impossible to impose the tax in two years' time. By a subterfuge, they are not repealing the Act, but rendering it impossible for the State in two years to impose a tax which was voted by this House. From the constitutional point of view that is an appalling position. It is a position that would not have been taken by all the great constitutionalists of the past or by the Leaders of the Conservative or Liberal parties. It seems to me that, when you get Liberals and Conservatives together, principles vanish altogether. As a comparatively new Member of the House of Commons, I consider that it is the duty of the House to protest against the act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. HARRIS: I want to say a word as one who voted for the Act of Parliament which provided for the valuation of the land. I would remind the House that it was passed actually in this year. Some of us may be old-fashioned in believing that it was a good thing in the interest of the State that there should be a valuation of the land. There has been no great change to justify, without the authority of Parliament, this reversal of policy. I should like to know what the Prime Minister thinks about it. The land tax was the policy of the Prime Minister, and he fathered this particular Act of Parliament. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, is still a member of the Cabinet. Before there is a reversal of policy like this the Prime Minister ought to come and justify it in the eyes of those who spent many laborious nights to make this Act of Parliament.
It may be necessary to economise in many directions. I agree that it might have been advisable to slow down the procedure, but that does not justify a complete reversal of policy without the authority of an Act of Parliament. If it is necessary for various reasons to conciliate the Conservatives, who make up the great majority of this Parliament, then let them come down and bravely face the fact, so that it may be recognised that there has been a complete reversal of policy. Then we shall know where we are.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have listened to many defences from responsible Ministers, but I do not think I ever heard a weaker case than that put forward as a defence for this reversal of policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke with the air of a man who has confidence in the large number of supporters behind him. In putting forward that defence he was not caring whether he had reason or justification for so unconstitutional an act; he cared only for the fact that the vested interests in the country were behind him. A right hon. Member opposite spoke with delight of what he termed the inevitable repeal of these Land Taxes. He said there was a majority in this House for their repeal. I question whether there is a majority in the country for it. [Laughter.] Landowning Members may laugh, but that is only an attempt to deride something
which they know is absolutely true. If this proposal had been put to the country and the working classes had been told that instead of stabilising the pound you were going to stabilise the income of landowners, a different tale might have been told.
When the present Prime Minister came to Glasgow on the eve of the 1929 Election, he said, with reference to the De-rating Act, and the pleas put forward by democratic local bodies for its repeal, that he questioned the right of a Government on taking office to repeal the Acts their predecessors had passed so short a time before. He said at that time that it was anti-democratic. I want to know where the present Prime Minister stands when an Act of this kind is going to he repealed by a Government of which he is the head. It only shows to me what I have believed for a long time, that on the Front Bench there is very little principle actuating the Members who are desirous of retaining office. The present Government are simply the servants of outside forces, who are dominating this House, and using the cry of economy and national necessity to plunder the resources of the nation. I want to say that Liberals who supported in the Division
Lobby the land taxes are now to be found in a Government which is repealing that which they said on a former occasion they were prepared to defend to the last ditch.
I warn the Members of the present Government that they are setting an example to the working classes of how unconstitutional constitutionalists may become when they assume office and get a vast majority behind them. It is a lesson that will be remembered by the working classes when they resume real power in the interests of the working classes. I do not think a more flagrant abuse of democratic power has ever been known. This is simply the beginning of the inevitable ending of these Land Taxes. They are preparing the way for throwing over the Prima Minister. The Home Secretary and the Members of the Cabinet who belonged to the Liberal and Labour parties in the past. They are preparing to go the whole hog in the interests of the robbing, moneyed classes of this country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.